Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/1339

SMT.SHAKUNTALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANUPAM GAS AGENCY - Opp.Party(s)

SH. AJAY DUBEY

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                           FIRST APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 05.10.2015 passed in C.C.No.284/2014 by the District Commission, Khandwa)

 

SMT. SHAKUNTALA,

W/O SHRI DINESH KUMAR BORASI,

R/O GANESHTALAI, NEAR KHEDAPATI

HANUMAAN MANDIR CHAKKI,

KHANDWA (M.P.)                                                                                          …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus                

1. ANUPAM GAS AGENCY,

    14, SHIKSHAK NAGAR, MOGHAT ROAD,

     KHANDWA THROUGH MANAGER.

 

2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,

    WESTERN DIVISION, 254 C DR.ANNIE

    BESANT ROAD, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI

    THROUGH MANAGER.

 

3. BANK OF INDIA,

    CIVIL LINE, KHANDWA

    THROUGH MANAGER.                                                                               …         RESPONDENTS.                                     

 

BEFORE:

                 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR  :  PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                    :  MEMBER     

                 HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                                      :  JUDICIAL MEMBER   

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

      None for the respondent no.1.

      Shri R. K. Lokhande, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

      Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

                                                                               

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On        .07.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Judicial Member:    

                         This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

 

-2-

Commission, Khandwa (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.284/2014, whereby the complainant’s complaint has been dismissed.

2.                Facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant are that she had obtained an Indane LPG connection no.6256 from the respondent no.1 in the year 1999. It is alleged that she took LPG cylinder on 09.09.2013, 12.10.2013, 13.11.2013, 26.12.2013 and 12.02.2014 under the subsidy scheme after paying Rs.1,030/-, Rs.1,106/-, Rs.1,058/-, Rs.1,123/- and Rs.1,1245/- respectively therefore she is entitled to get subsidy through Aadhar Card by the bank as beneficiary under the scheme floated by the Government of India on her LPG connection. It is further submitted that she linked her Aadhar Card with the gas dealer the opposite party no.1 as also with the bank opposite party no.2 in the year 2013 and despite that she could not get subsidy. She therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party no.1-dealer resisted the complaint stating that the complainant had produced her Aadhar card only on 31.12.2014 which was immediately uploaded on the company’s website, thereafter she linked her Aadhar card with the bank only on 01.01.2015 and therefore she is getting subsidy regularly after 01.01.2015. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

-3-

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that being beneficiary under the scheme floated by the Government of India, the appellant was entitled to get subsidy on her LPG connection and in not doing so, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. He further argued that the order passed by the District Commission is against the law and principles of natural justice and is liable to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-Indian Oil Corporation argued that the subsidy granted by the Government directly goes to the complainant’s account and it is through bank the complainant get the same. The Indian Oil Corporation is not concerned with encashment of subsidy in complainant’s account.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3/respondent no.3 bank argued that the dispute raised by the complainant does not amount to consumer dispute inasmuch as the grievance of the complainant is denial of benefit under a government scheme for which the complainant never paid any consideration.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that the District Commission after considering the evidence available on record has rightly reached to the conclusion that the complainant linked her Aadhar card with the bank only on 01.01.2015 and thereafter she is getting subsidy regularly and she failed to prove that

-4-

she linked Aadhar card with the bank earlier. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint on this ground but the fact remains that whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the dispute as raised by her is a consumer dispute or not.

9.                The very short point involved in this matter is whether the grievance with regard to denial of benefits under a government scheme amounts to consumer dispute as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) or not.

10.              The Hon’ble National Commission in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs Rewari Central Co-operative Bank & Anr I (2013) CPJ 668 (NC) has held that subsidy offered to be paid is not ‘service’ as per the Act and therefore, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act. Similar view has been taken by the National Commission in State Bank of India Vs Rajendra & Anr I (2017) CPJ 319 (NC) and in Gauri Devangan Vs Priyadarshani Gas Agency & Anr III (2018) CPJ 293 (NC).

11.              In the present circumstances of the case and on the strength of the decisions of the National Commission we are of a considered view that the grievance with regard to denial of benefits under a government scheme does not amount to consumer dispute as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as benefits under the government scheme is granted

-5-

to beneficiaries without any consideration considering the eligibility of the beneficiaries.

12.              In view of the aforesaid, we are of a considered view that person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a ‘consumer’ as the subsidy is not a service within meaning of the Act and remedy does not lie under the Act.

13.              The District Commission did not commit any mistake in dismissing the complaint. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

   (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)   (S. S. Bansal)     (A. K. Tiwari)

                      President                            Member         Judicial Member