National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Delhi & District Cricket ... vs Harsimron Singh Sandhu & Anrs on 27 August, 2003
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.2502 OF 2003 (From the order dated 01.04.2003 in Appeal No.A-282/2003 of the State Commission, Delhi) M/s Delhi & District Cricket Association Petitioner Vs. Harsimron Singh Sandhu & Anrs. Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER Contract - Sale of tickets for witnessing cricket match entry to the stadium barred on the ground that it was already full deficiency in service claim for damages - refund of the value of the ticket allowed. For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mittal, and Mr. Abhijit Puri, Advocates O R D E R
DATED THE 27TH AUGUST, 2003 JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).
Petitioner M/s Delhi & District Cricket Association (the Association) was opposite party before the District Forum in a complaint filed by the respondents/complainants. The case set up by the Association did not find favour with the District Forum which allowed the complaint. Appeal by the Association was dismissed by the State Commission. Now, this petitioner by the Association.
Cricket match was organised by the Association.
Tickets for witnessing the match were sold through the Canara Bank. It was one day International Cricket Match to be played between India and England at Ferozshah Kotla Ground on 31.1.2002. Complainants purchased 4 tickets of Rs.2,000/- each but when the ticket holders reached the stadium on the appointed day and were at the entry gate of stadium at 9.15 A.M. they were told that stadium was full and no further entry even of the ticket holders would be allowed. Complainants waited for hours to get entry to stadium but they were denied. Complaining deficiency in service, complaint was filed for refund of Rs.8,000/- being the price of the 4 tickets, Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and Rs.12,700/- towards the cost of litigation. Complainants also claimed interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.2.2002 till the payment.
District Forum allowed the complaint and directed refund of Rs.,8,000/- being the price of the 4 tickets with interest @ 9% from 31.1.2002 till payment. Complainants were also awarded Rs.40,000/- as compensation. They were also awarded a further sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs.
The Association went in Appeal to the State Commission which, as stated above, dismissed the same in limini and upheld the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, Association has now filed this petition.
It is admitted that tickets were sold and further that entry to the stadium was denied to the complainants. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the Association submitted that the complainant should have come to the stadium much earlier if they were interested to witness the match and could not come to stadium at their own convenience. Such an argument is quite distressing coming as it does come from the Association. Mr. Mittal then said the complainant should have contacted some officer of the Association. He does not tell us where such an officer was available when there was a mad rush.
Why not such an officer should have been available at the gate itself to give refund of the tickets and at the same time apologising for selling more tickets than the stadium could accommodate. This was an act of gross deficiency on the part of the Association. When ticket is sold, the purchaser is promised that he will have entry in the stadium and will be provided a comfortable space in that particular category to witness the match. Complainants have been denied of their right to witness the match. They purchased tickets of high value of Rs.2,000/- each. Instead of being apologetic and to attempt to settle the claim of the complainants, the Association has come up with the plea which is quite specious one. The amount of dis-appointment which the complainants would have faced could be more than for what, in fact, they have been compensated. First they purchased the tickets after visiting the Bank, then they come to the Stadium with valid tickets from Saket, a far off colony from Delhi Stadium, and yet denied entering the stadium. Their amount of agony and suffering is writ large on the face of it. This petition has no merit.
We do not find it a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Petition is dismissed.
J (D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT .
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER .
(B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER .J (K.S. GUPTA) MEMBER