Order No.9, Dated15.01.2019.:- Complainant is absent in calls and no steps taken on his behalf.  Opposite Party No.2 files agent hazira.

It appears from the case record that opposite party no.1 did not put his appearance and filed no written version till date. OP No2 filed written version and OP No.3 also filed written version. The complainant filed the instant petition filed on 12.3.2018 praying direction upon the opposite party Indian Oil Corporation, Gas Distributor at Rishra and the United Bank of India Nabagram Branch for getting subsidy amount and other reliefs like compensation and litigation cost. But  Hon’ble National Commission in Gauri Devangan V. Priyadarshini Gas Agency 2018 (3) CPR 161 NC  held that the State Commission has rightly observed that the the subsidy amount is sent directly to the bank account by the Ministry of Petroleum  and Natural Gas, hence local dealer and the local bank have very limited scope role and no deficiency is service can be attributed to the opposite parties. Moreover the person claiming subsidy is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as held by the commission in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav V. The Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr, Revision petition No.4894 of 2012, decided on 08.02.2013 wherein it has been held that a person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a Consumer as the subsidy is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and his remedy does not  lie under the Consumer Protection Act,1986by filing a complaint and he can seek relief from a Civil court, or some other Forum as per law. Complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of  Consumer Protection Act,1986 and complaint was not maintainable.

Banking upon the observation of Hon’ble National Commission this Forum is in the opinion to dismiss the complaint petition being No.29 of 2018 as it is not maintainable before this Forum under Consumer Protection Act,1986.