DATE OF ORDER

 ORDER WITH SIGNATURE

ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR ON OFFICE NOTING

20.06.2023

                    Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants.

                    Heard on the question of admission.

                    This appeal arises out of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivpuri (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No. 243 of 2021 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the State Government which was to issue subsidy was not made party to the complaint.

                    Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned order we find that the subsidy amount was to be released by the State Government which was only to be disbursed through the respondent no.1 bank, therefore the impugned order passed by the District Commission holding that the State Government was a necessary party and dismissal of the complaint on that ground cannot be said to be illegal warranting interference in the impugned order.

                                      -2-

                  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 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) and therefore, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act.

                   In the case of State Bank of India Vs Rajendra & Anr I (2017) CPJ 319 (NC) it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that since the complainant has not hired any service for consideration for providing subsidy and subsidy was to be disbursed as and when it was received from Central Government and therefore the complainant cannot be treated as ‘consumer’ under the Act.

                  In the case of Gauri Devangan Vs Priyadarshani Gas Agency & Anr III (2018) CPJ 293 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that since the subsidy amount is sent directly to the bank account by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, hence local dealer and local bank have very limited role and no deficiency in service can be attributed. It has been further held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a ‘consumer’, as the subsidy is not a service

-3-

within the meaning of the Act and his remedy does not lie under the Act.

                  Having regard to the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal therefore deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.         

(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

              President                             Member