Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 39545
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunita Yadav, President, Monika Malik, Member
Jaan Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
Satpuda Khetriya Gramin Bank – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/22/980|FIRST APPEAL NO. 980 OF 2022|C.C.No. 15/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Mishra
For the Respondents: Uma Golandaz, Manish Nema, Ruchir Chaturvedi
A beneficiary of a government subsidy scheme is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act because the disbursement of a subsidy does not constitute a 'service' hired for consideration.
Headnote:The appellant sought adjustment of subsidy amount granted under the Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Srijan Karyakram (PMEGP) in his loan amount, alleging deficiency in service by the bank and government agencies for failing to credit the subsidy and refund the security deposit. The District Commission had previously dismissed the complaint, finding no deficiency in service. The primary issue was whether a beneficiary of a government subsidy scheme constitutes a 'consumer' and whether the non-payment of subsidy amounts to a 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act. The court reasoned that subsidy offered to be paid is not a 'service' for consideration, and therefore, a person seeking the benefit of a government subsidy is not a 'consumer' as defined under the Act. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant sought subsidy adjustment under pmegp loan; district commission dismissed it. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding deficiency in service versus the status of a government scheme beneficiary. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. subsidy beneficiaries are not 'consumers' as subsidy is not a 'service' for consideration. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. complaint is non-maintainable in consumer commission; appeal dismissed. (Para 18 , 19) |
HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
JAAN MOHD.
DATED: 23/12/2025
ORDER
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. 980 OF 2022
(Arising out of order dated 15.09.2022 passed in C.C.No. 15/2018 by District Commission, Umaria)
JAAN MOHAMMAD
S/O SHRI SHIEKH MUBARAK,
R/O VILLAGE-DUBBAR, TEHSIL-CHANDIA,
DISTRICT-UMARIA (M.P.) … APPELLANT.
Versus
1. CHIEF BRANCH MANAGER,
SATPUDA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,
BRANCH-NAUGAJA, DISTRICT-UMARIA (M.P.)
2. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES,
VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. DISTRICT INDUSTRY MANAGER,
UMARIA (M.P.)
4. KHADI GRAMODYOG,
BHOPAL (M.P.)
5. NODAL BANK, CENTRAL BANK,
ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.) ... RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE :
HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT
HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Uma Golandaz, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
None for the respondent no.2 and 3.
Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
Shri Ruchir Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
O R D E R
(Passed On 23.12.2025)
Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:
The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated
15.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes
-2-
Redressal Commission, Umaria (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 15/2018
whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.
2. In the complaint filed by the complainant, the complainant has submitted
that he applied loan under Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Srijan Karyakram (Prime
Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) to opposite party no.1-
bank through opposite party no.3 District Industry Manager. The opposite party no.1
bank after sanctioning the loan of Rs.1,40,000/- had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on
10.05.2012 and Rs.30,000/- on 05.07.2012 in complainant's bank account and kept
Rs.10,000/- towards security of installment. The complainant deposited the
installments of repayment of loan time to time despite that the opposite parties did
not provide Rs.49,000/- of subsidy amount to him. The complainant made request to
the opposite parties to adjust the amount of subsidy in original loan amount but the
opposite parties failed to do so due to which the complainant was burdened with
unnecessary debt. It is alleged that the opposite party no.1-bank kept an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards security of installment which was also not paid. The
complainant therefore filed a complaint seeking relief of adjustment of subsidy
amount in loan amount and for refund of remaining subsidy amount after adjustment
along with compensation and costs.
-3-
3. The opposite party no.1-bank in their reply to the complaint before the
District Commission submitted that under PMEGP the opposite party no.2-Director
of Industries sanctioned loan and the total sanctioned loan amount was credited to
the complainant's account on 10.05.2012 & 09.06.2012. As per scheme to provide
subsidy amount to the complainant, the opposite party no.1-bank wrote to opposite
party no.5-Nodal Bank Central Bank of India on 23.05.2012, 27.06.2013 and
26.12.2016 but the opposite party no.3-District Industry Manager did not take any
interest. The opposite party no.1-bank is not liable for not giving subsidy amount to
the complainant. The liability to sanction and giving subsidy amount is of the
opposite party no.2-Director of Industries. There has been no deficiency in service
on part of the bank. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. The opposite party no
