Challenge in these appeals is to the common order dated 31.07.09 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaints no. 42, 43 and 44 of 2007. Going by the nature of dispute raised by the complainants in the said complaints and the relief sought for, the State Commission has dismissed the complaints observing that the dispute was arose from the contractual obligation of the parties under a contract of supply of buses on hire by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation from the complainants and matters connected therewith. The State Commission held that the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation cannot be said to be deficient in ..3.. rendering service within the meaning of section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while awarding the said contracts and, therefore, the complainants are not ‘consumers’ within the ambit of definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Act and the complaints so filed were not maintainable. Mr. K. Maruti Rao, learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute this legal proposition but his grievance is that while dismissing the complaints on the above premise the State Commission has not reserved liberty to the complainants to pursue their remedy before the appropriate court or tribunal having held that the consumer fora has no jurisdiction. In our view, even without giving any express liberty, the right of the appellants to approach the appropriate court/tribunal for the redresssal of their grievance, is not effected. However, we clarify that the appellants will be free to seek the redressal of their grievance before the competent court/tribunal in accordance with the law. With these observations, the First Appeals stands disposed of.