Paying members of sports clubs are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held, setting aside the dismissal of a lifetime member’s complaint over the termination of his membership of the Surat District Cricket Association.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that members of sports and recreational associations who pay fees to avail facilities and services qualify as consumers, partly allowing an appeal and remanding a complaint against the Surat District Cricket Association to the District Commission, Surat, for fresh adjudication on merits [Manubhai C Shah v. Surat District Cricket Association and Others].
The Bench of President (In-charge) I.D. Patel and Member Dr. J.G. Mecwan decided Appeal No. 353 of 2018. The order was written by Dr. Mecwan.
How the case reached the Commission
The appellant, Manubhai C Shah, a Goa resident, is a lifetime member (Family Patron Category, membership number 03877) of the Surat District Cricket Association. His case before the District Forum was that he had regularly paid membership and maintenance fees, including Rs 4,000 by cheque in April 2010 and Rs 12,000 in April 2013, both encashed by the Association.
He alleged that other cheques were lost by the Association and that a representative sent to pay dues was turned away without reason. He further alleged that around April 1, 2015 the Association demanded Rs 20,000 as outstanding maintenance fees, warning that membership could be cancelled if fees remained unpaid for two years, and that his membership was nonetheless terminated.
He said a Rs 25,000 cheque sent by registered post in June 2016 was never encashed and that a legal notice of July 30, 2016 went unanswered. He sought restoration of membership, acceptance of the dues and Rs 25,000 as compensation for harassment and deficiency in service. These are the appellant’s allegations; the Commission has not tested them.
The Surat District Forum dismissed Complaint No. 802 of 2016 on April 24, 2018 on the preliminary ground of maintainability, relying on an earlier State Commission decision in Appeal No. 57/2016 involving a membership card, without examining the merits. Shah appealed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
What the parties argued
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate P.H. Thakkar argued that the Association had produced no valid resolution terminating the membership, that the Rs 12,000 paid in 2013 had to be given credit against the dues, and that the Rs 25,000 cheque showed his willingness to pay. Advocate Milan Dudhiya, for the Association, submitted that the Rs 12,000 related to earlier years, that Rs 20,000 remained outstanding for 2013-14 to 2015-16, that a valid termination resolution had been passed, and that the Rs 25,000 cheque itself suggested dues were pending. The Association added that, if the Commission found merit in the matter, the proper course was to remand it to the District Commission.
What the Commission said
The Commission found that the Association provides cultural activities, sports activities, indoor games and other recreational facilities to members against payment of membership and maintenance fees, and held:
Thus, the membership is not merely a matter of holding an identity card, but is connected with availing facilities/services against payment of membership and maintenance fees. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellant is therefore a “consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, and the facilities/services provided by the Respondent Association against the membership/maintenance fees fall within the ambit of “service” under the Act.
The Commission said the District Commission could not mechanically apply its earlier decision in Appeal No. 57/2016, where the complainant had relied only on a membership card, because here the appellant had produced particulars of payments, the alleged dues, a Rs 25,000 cheque, a bank statement and correspondence including a legal notice.
The Commission also noted a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18636/2019 before the Supreme Court, which concerns the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to a trust and was directed to be considered by a larger Bench. It held that, in the present case, the appellant is an individual member paying fees for facilities and services, so the Consumer Commission has jurisdiction.
The directions
The appeal was partly allowed and the District Forum’s order of April 24, 2018 was quashed and set aside. The District Commission, Surat, was directed to decide Consumer Complaint No. 802 of 2016 afresh on merits after hearing both sides and allowing them to lead evidence. The Association’s resolution and constitution or bye-laws, produced before the State Commission, were taken on record subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. The parties were directed to appear before the District Commission on November 6, 2026, with no order as to costs.
The Commission clarified that, except for the finding that the appellant is a consumer for this complaint, it expressed no opinion on the alleged payments, the outstanding dues, the termination of membership or the validity of the Association’s resolution.
Why the order matters
The ruling looks at what a member actually receives for the fees paid, not at the label of a membership card. Where sports, cultural and recreational facilities are provided against payment, the member can approach consumer fora for deficiency in service, which gives clubs and associations a reason to keep proper records of dues and terminations.
The finding is confined to the facts of this complaint and the Commission stopped short of deciding whether the membership was validly terminated. That question now goes to the District Commission.
Case Title: Manubhai C Shah v. Surat District Cricket Association and Others [Appeal No. 353 of 2018]
Bench: President (In-charge) I.D. Patel and Member Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Date of Order: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Advocate P.H. Thakkar for the appellant; Advocate Milan Dudhiya for the respondents