Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 39454
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Raj Shekhar Attri, President, Padma Pandey, Member
Bhupinder Malik – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank – Respondent
Appeal No. 242 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhupinder Malik
For the Respondents: Sumit Narang
A person seeking subsidy under a government welfare scheme is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 because subsidy is not a service hired for consideration; Consumer Fora lack jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Definition of 'consumer' - Section 2(7) - Requirement of consideration - Subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) - Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS) - A person seeking benefit of subsidy under a government scheme is not a 'consumer' under the Act - Subsidy does not constitute a 'service' hired for consideration - Consumer Fora lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to subsidy - No contractual relationship between borrower and bank for subsidy - Bank's role is facilitative/ministerial, not a hired service. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Negligence - Deficiency in service - Negligence alone is insufficient to invoke consumer jurisdiction unless it arises from deficiency in a service hired for consideration - Remedy lies before Civil Court or other competent forum, not under Consumer Protection Act. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, Bhupinder Malik, availed a housing loan of Rs.28.50 lakhs from UCO Bank for purchase of a flat in Mohali. He applied for interest subsidy of Rs.2,67,000/- under the PMAY-CLSS scheme. The subsidy was not released. The appellant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the bank and others, claiming compensation for the loss of subsidy. The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant is not a 'consumer' under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The State Commission upheld the decision of the District Commission, holding that the appellant is not a consumer in respect of the subsidy claim. The subsidy is a government welfare measure, not a service hired for consideration. The bank's role in forwarding the claim is only facilitative. Negligence, if any, does not create consumer jurisdiction without a service hired for consideration.
Issues: Whether the appellant is a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in respect of his claim for subsidy under PMAY-CLSS? Whether the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to non-release of such subsidy?
Ratio Decidendi: A person claiming subsidy under a government scheme is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 because no consideration is paid or promised for the subsidy. Subsidy is a welfare measure, not a service. The Consumer Fora lack jurisdiction to entertain such claims. The remedy, if any, lies before a Civil Court or other competent forum.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. : 242 of 2025
Date of Institution : 04.08.2025
Date of Decision : 22.12.2025
Bhupinder Malik, age 44 years, S/o Sh. Ram Chander Malik
Permanent Address: H.No.926, Sector-12, HUDA, Panipat, Haryana 132103
Correspondence Address: Flat No.O-803, Jal Vayu Towers, Tower-O, Sector-
125, Greater Mohali, Punjab 140301
Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
1] UCO Bank, SCO-283, Sector-35, Chandigarh through Branch
Manager
2] UCO Bank, Zonal office Chandigarh, SCO 55-56-57 Bank Square,
Sector-17-B, Chandigarh-UT-160017 through Deputy General
Manager
3] National Housing Bank (wholly owned by Reserve Bank of India),
Regional office, Ground Floor, Jeevan deep Building, Sector 17-A,
Chandigarh-160017 through Assistant General Manager
4] Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U), Housing for All (HFA)
Mission Division, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government
of India, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110011
through Mission Director: (Respondent No.4 deleted by District
Commission vide order dated 01.05.2025)
….Respondents/Opposite Parties
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:-
Sh. Bhupinder Malik, appellant in person
Sh. Sumit Narang, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 (already proceeded
exparte vide order dated 19.09.2025)
Name of respondent No.4 deleted from the array of the parties vide order
dated 18.11.2025
2
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant – Sh.
Bhupinder Malik (appellant herein) for setting aside of order dated
01.07.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I,
U.T., Chandigarh (referred to as the 'District Commission') vide which
consumer complaint No.533 of 2024 filed by him has been dismissed by the
District Commission.
2] Briefly stated the case of the appellant-complainant before the
District Commission was that the complainant and his wife purchased Flat
No.O-803 in Jal Vayu Towers, Sector-125, Mohali for Rs.38 lakh in
December 2020 and approached opposite party No.1 for a home loan, where
the bank officials assured him of lowest rate of interest and subsidy of
Rs.2,67,000/- under CLSS, PMAY (Urban). After submission of all required
documents and signing of forms, including the Self Declaration-Income
Certificate filled by opposite party No.1, a home loan of Rs.28,50,000/- was
sanctioned and an application number for subsidy was issued. Despite
repeated visits and assurances that the subsidy claim was processed and
forwarded, no subsidy was released and the complainant was never
informed of any ineligibility. Only through the RBI Ombudsman’s email
dated 25.07.2024 did the complainant learn that opposite party No.2 had
declared him ineligible on grounds of income and carpet area, which was
contrary to record, as the declared household income of Rs.4,88,430/- fell
under PMAY-LIG criteria and if wife’s income was included, the complainant
qualified under PMAY-MIG-I. It was further the case of the complainants
that they were never informed of these grounds earlier and the real reason
for non-release of subsidy appeared to be failure of opposite party No.2 to
upload documents on the CNA portal. The complainant termed the acts of
the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice, which resulted into filing of a consumer complaint before the
District Commission.
3] Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their reply filed before the District
Commission, while admitting the sanction of a home loan of Rs.28.50 lacs to
3
the complainant, stated that the complainant, at his own volition, opted to
avail subsidy under PMAY and was clearly made aware that grant of subsidy
is the sole prerogative of the National Housing Bank (NHB). It was further
stated that the opposite parties only lodged the claim to facilitate the
complainant and had no role in disbursement of subsidy and therefore,
could not be held liable if the subsidy was rejected by NHB.
4] Opposite Party No.3, in its separate reply filed before the
District Commission, stated that there
