Order No. 03Dated : 16.12.2019
Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.
Today is fixed for order regarding admission of the consumer complaint.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Gas Cylinder from OP-1, Karco Distributors, however, her grievance is that she did not receive the subsidiary amount in his S.B Account No.20052401967 at State Bank of India, Tangra Branch, therefore, the instant consumer case has been filed before this Forum with a prayer for credit the subsidiary amount of Rs.10,000/- from the period from 04.07.2016 to 01.10.2018 and compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
We have perused the complaint petition coupled with its annexure thereto. Considered. The Hon’ble NCDRC in RP No. 3105 of 2017 decided on 25.06.2018 (GauriDevangan – Vs- Priyadarshani Gas Agency) reported in 2018 (3) CPR 161 (NC) has been pleased to observe that subsidiary amount is sent directly to the Bank Account by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, hence, local dealer and local bank have limited role and no deficiency in service can be attributed to the OPs. Moreover, the person claiming subsidiary is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as held by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Chaudhury Ashok Yadav -vs- Rewari Central Co-operative Bank and Anr, RP No. 4894 of 2012, decided on 08.02.2013 wherein it has been held that a person seeking benefit of subsidiary under a scheme is not a ‘Consumer’, as the subsidiary is not a service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , and her remedy does not lie under the consumer Protection Act, 1986, by filing a complaint and that seek relief from a Civil Court, or some other Forum, as per law. Thus, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer protection Act, 1986. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable.
Based on the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the instant consumer case. Accordingly, the consumer case is not admitted and is dismissed in limine.
