MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs ASWINI VERMA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 9.9.2002 passed in Case No. 146/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the ''District Forum'') whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in not admitting/permitting the respondents inspite they had valid two tickets of Rs. 250/- and four tickets of Rs. 300/- each to watch the One Day Cricket International Match held on 31.3.2001 between India and Australia in the Nehru Stadium at Indore, was allowed with an order to return the costs of the tickets of Rs. 1,700/- and to pay compensation of Rs. 500/- to each of the complainant alongwith Rs. 300/- as costs of the proceedings.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that Stadium has a seating capacity of 27,100 while tickets sold were of only 27,054. The Law and Order Authorities apprehending that there is likelihood of breach of peace and that some untoward incident may not occur creating law and order problems, had taken the premises of the Stadium in their control and for the purposes of security a metal detector door was also arranged. In such security arrangement even the appellant''s Secretary had to take a pass from the Administration for entering into the premises from time to time. The Secretary itself made efforts and then approached the Chief Minister that Corporators, Legislators, Parliamentarians or other Officials should not insist for grant of passes and should purchase tickets to witness the match. On this Hon''ble the Chief Minister issued an appeal and himself purchased a ticket to witness the match. The liability of the Association would have arisen when the respondent after passing through metal detector gate would have entered the Stadium and then if the seat is not provided in the gallery of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 300/- respectively. There is no such allegation in the complaint, on the other hand, the allegation is that despite of the tickets the Police Force on duty did not allow them to enter into the Stadium from metal detector gate. Therefore, if the respondents who had valid tickets were not permitted by the Police for law and order reasons and with a view of security, the blame cannot be thrown on the Association. It is also contended that in fact the respondents did not come to witness the match if in reality they came, then they ought to have lodged a complaint. In the circumstances the appellant-Association for no fault of it has been made scapegoat which has adversely affected the reputation of the Association and its office-bearers. In any case, the respondents purchased tickets for their entertainment. If they could not enter the Stadium at the most the order of refund of the costs of the ticket could have been passed, as when a person comes for entertainment the question of mental pain, harassment and inconvenience does not arise. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that the question of repudiation of the appellant-Cricket Association and its Secretary, who is a man of international repute or other officials does not arise. Admittedly, there was huge crowd. With a view to avoid untoward incident or law and order problem the law and order authorities had taken the management and control of the premises of Stadium prior to two days of the match, but that does not mean that a person who holds a valid ticket should not be allowed either by the police force or by the Association on whose behalf the Police Force was there to maintain law and order. In such a situation it was the duty of the law and order authorities and of the Association to see that the person who had a valid ticket he should be permitted to enter into the Stadium to watch the international one day cricket match held between the two countries.

The submission that if there was any fault it was of the law and order authorities, therefore, the law and order authorities or administration is a necessary party, cannot be accepted as there was no relationship of the respondent as a consumer with the State Administration or the Police Force. The relationship of the consumer was with the appellant to whom the consideration was paid, hence the respondent rightly filed the complaint against the appellant only.

IN similar circumstances, in a recent decision the question was considered by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi and District Cricket Association v. Harsimron Singh Sandhu & Anr., II (2003) CPJ 423, wherein while dismissing the complaint in limine in para 5 it was observed thus : "5. .................The learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments made a vain attempt by saying that the entry gates in the Stadium were being manned by the local police authorities and the appellant had no control over the same and if the respondent could not gain entry, the same was not due to any deficiency or fault on the part of the appellant but the same was attributable to the failure on the part of local police authorities in discharging their duties. IN our opinion, the plea being advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit because the complainants, who had purchased the tickets, had privity of contract with the appellant and not with the local police. The arrangement made with the local police was between the appellant and the local police and the respondents were not concerned with the same. IN our opinion, in the given facts, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The order which is well reasoned one suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs."

The contention that the respondents were not entitled to compensation can also not be accepted. The respondent to prove their case have filed their affidavits stating therein that the respondents were not permitted to enter from the metal detector gate. In such circumstances the mental state of affair of the respondents can very well be imagined from which they must have suffered besides, the inconvenience and hardship caused to them.

HOWEVER, it is because of the act of the District Administration or the Law and Order Authorities that the complainants who had valid tickets were not admitted in the Stadium to witness the cricket match for no fault of their, it would be appropriate to observe that the District Administration, Law and Order Authorities and the appellant/Association to take such measures to see that genuine ticket holders are admitted from metal detector or entry gate as the case may be. In view of the above, the appellant is ordered to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as ordered by the District Forum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the amount to carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs of this appeal. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith the record of the case. Appeal dismissed.