Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the petitioner mill had purchased sugarcane from the respondent at a price less that what it had paid to the other farmers. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the difference amount of Rs.5/- per quintal totaling to Rs.17,000/- along with Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and physical -2- torture and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost. Petitioner was directed to pay the amount within 30 days, failing which the amount was to carry interest @ 7% p.a. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent would not be a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the judgment of this Commission in “The Chairman, Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana vs. Anandrao Nivrutti Khot, 2002 (1) CPR 126 (NC) revision petition 978 of 2001, decided on 04.12.2001’; that the respondent was a seller of goods; that the respondent did not buy or hire services of the petitioner and, therefore, not a consumer. Although, we find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, but since the amount involved is very meager, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. Question of law is left open. -3- The decision of the State Commission be not taken as a precedent for future reference. Petitioner is directed to pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the fora below within 4 weeks from today, failing which the petitioner would become liable to pay interest @ 7% as per directions issued by the District Forum. On payment of the sum of Rs.2,000/- petitioner would be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by it before the State Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. The State Commission is directed to release the amount deposited in favour of the petitioner. | 
