PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. The whole controversy centres around the law point, “Whether the complainants are the consumers?”. We have heard the counsel for the parties. This order shall decide two revision petitions by a common judgment as both of them entail the same facts and question of law. 2. The complainants, Mohd. Mahboob Ali and Qamar Sultana @ Qamar, husband and wife, respectively, are the owners of land situated, at Hadnoor Village, Medak District in Andhra Pradesh. The complainants grow sugarcane crop, in their fields. The complainants entered into an agreement with the General Manager, Trident Sugar Ltd. Madhunagar, Zaheerabad, Medak District-OP, who runs a factory, for supplying of sugarcane, for the season 2007-2008, through Ryot dated 26.09.2007. The allegation of the complainants is that the OP did not issue Ryot to the complainants, till the closure of the factory, for the season, during the year 2007-08. The complainants had to cut down the crops, removed it from the field to the side of the land and incurred an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter, OP did not issue the permit in time, whereby the complainants incurred heavy expenditure. Legal notice was sent, but it did not ring the bell. Both the Fora below have decided the case in favour of the complainants with the only difference that the District Forum granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- but it was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the State Commission. 3. Against the order passed by the State Commission, two other revision petitions filed by the complainants for enhancement of compensation, have been dismissed, today, as barred by time. 4. The only point raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the complainants are not the consumers. We have also perused the agreement in this case. Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the agreement, which reads as under:- “TRIDENT SUGARS LIMITED- MADHUNAGAR, ZAHEERABAD Acknowledgement Dt.: 26/09/07 To; Sri Mahaboob Ali Ryot No. 217039 Dear Sir, We are in receipt of your offer for agreement of sugarcane crop for the crushing season 2007-08. Pot No. Area Type Plnt Dt Variety 63356 2.21 R2 3/2/2007 C08014 63358 0.74 R2 9/04/2007 C08014 We acknowledge the same. Yours sincerely General Manager”. In the written statement it is clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentioned that:- “In fact the opposite party is running a factory for manufacturing sugar and the complainant is supplying his sugar cane to the opposite party factory, for which the opposite party is paying the price of the cane to the complainant. As such the complainant is not at all a consumer of the opposite party.” 5. The judgment relied upon by the State Commission in “Mahaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. vs Sri Manik and others’ II (2007) CPJ 276 (NC) has no binding force. The counsel for the complainants/respondents has placed heavy reliance upon it. He has made a vain attempt to differentiate this authority with the other authorities, cited by the counsel for the petitioner. We are bound by the judgment by the three members. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has cited two authorities, one by Two Members’ and second by Three Members (Judges). We are bound by the judgment given by Three Judges of this Commission. In support of his case, he has cited first authority reported in the case of “The Chairman, Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Anandrao Vivrutti Khot [20002 (4) ALT 36]”, where it was held: “2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent has over 3 acres of land in the catchment area of the Petitioner sugar factory. There is an agreement between the parties for supply/ purchase of sugarcane to be supplied by the Respondent to the Petitioner company. It is the case of the Respondent/Complainant that in spite of agreement which is on record, the Petitioner picked up sugarcane from ½ acre only leaving with him about 90 tonnes of unlifted sugarcane causing loss to him as result of deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner factory. The District Forum after hearing both the parties held the Complainant to be a consumer and held the Petitioner deficient in rendering the service under the agreement and awarded relief to the extent of granting compensation @ Rs. 850/- per tonnes for 90 tonnes of sugar cane and interest @ 16% from 1.7.96 and cost of Rs. 500/-. Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission where appellant remained absent, hence after pursuing the material on record, State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Revision Petition. 3. The only point agitated before us is that the complainant is not a consumer for which he has relied upon the judgment of the T.N. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in R. Matilsan v. Special Officer, Amravat Co-operative sugar Mills Ltd. 1 (1993) CPJ 162 wherein it was held:- “In order to entitle a person to claim to be a consumer under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act, he must have hired the services of the opposite party for a consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment. There is absolutely nothing to show in the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for any consideration. The agreement says that the complaint who has to cut and produce the sugarcanes at the premises of the Mill. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant has not hired the services of the Mill.” 4. xxx 5. xxx 6. We see from the record that the complainat is not a buyer of goods which sugarcane is, infact he is a seller of goods. Clause ‘B’ lays down the sale of sugarcane. Term B 1) and 2) are relevant for our purpose which reads as follows:- B. Terms of sales of sugar: 1) I am agreed to cut and carry the sugarcane to the factory at my cost. Programme for cutting and carrying the sugarcane is to be decided by the factory and is agreed to by me. 2) Cutting and carrying of sugarcane as and when necessary and told by you”. 7. In the second authority/ judgment by Three Members’ reported in the case of Purna Sahakar Shakar Karkhana Pravheni Versus Tatyaraoramrao Kate Parvheni [II (1994) CPJ 107 (NC)], wherein it was held by Hon’ble Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President: “Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner, Shri T. Raja, is well founded in his contention that the grievance put forward by the Complainant before the District Forum was not a consumer dispute at all as defined in the Act. There was no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration as between the Respondent and petitioner Society. The mere fact that the Petitioner Society had assured the Respondent that they would purchase for their factory the sugar cane crop grown by the Respondent on his lands does not make the Respondent a consumer as defined in the Act and the complaint preferred by him on the ground of failure on the part of the Society in honouring their promise cannot be regarded as consumer dispute. The Orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are wholly without jurisdiction. They are hereby set aside and the complaint petition is dismissed. The Revision Petition is allowed as above. No costs.” 8. The complainants are not the consumers. Therefore, we set aside the orders passed by the Fora below and accept the revision petitions, with no order as to costs. The complaints are dismissed but liberty is granted to the complainants to approach other appropriate forum except the consumer fora, as per Law. 9. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of. | 
