This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Gauri Dewangan petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.137/2017.  As the petitioner was not appearing, the order dated 23.01.2018 passed by this Commission was sent to the petitioner to pursue the matter on the next date fixed i.e. 30.05.2018.  Even after delivery of this order, none was present on the date fixed i.e. 30.5.2018.  Meanwhile, the petitioner has sent letter, which has been received in the Registry on 09.05.2018, wherein it has been stated that she is below the poverty line and she cannot attend the proceedings and a short synopsis has also been sent along with petitioner’s letter. 

2.      As the petitioner was not present and the written synopsis has been sent by the petitioner, the matter was reserved for orders on 30.05.2018.

3.      I have perused the record and contents of the revision petition as well as the written submissions sent by the petitioner. 

4.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased gas cylinder, however her grievance was that she did not receive the subsidy amount in her account, therefore, the complaint bearing No.CC/62/2016 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The District Forum allowed the complaint and asked the opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 to pay the subsidy amount.  The opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 preferred an appeal bearing No.FA/2017/137 before the State Commission and the State Commission allowed the appeal on the ground that the disbursement of the subsidy was responsibility of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and therefore, the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 were not responsible for the same.

5.      Vide order dated 03.08.2017 of the State Commission appeal was allowed and complaint was dismissed.

6.      Hence, the present revision petition.

7.      The State Commission has rightly observed that 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 to the opposite parties.  Moreover, the person claiming subsidy is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as held by this Commission in Chaudhary Ashok Yadav Vs. 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, 1986, by filing a complaint and that he can seek relief from a Civil Court, or some other forum, as per law.  Thus, the petitioner is not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, the complaint was not maintainable.

8.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition.  Accordingly revision petition No.3105 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.