The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held that members of sports and recreational associations who pay fees to avail facilities and services qualify as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, meaning they are entitled to remedies under the said law [Manubhai Vs Surat Cricket Association].

A Bench of President (in-charge) ID Patel and Member JG Mecwan made the observation while setting aside an order dismissing a consumer complaint filed by a lifetime member (appellant) of the Surat District Cricket Association (SDCA) over the termination of his membership.

The State Commission held that membership of an association involving payment for sports, cultural and recreational facilities cannot be treated merely as possession of a membership card.

"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... 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 observed.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Manubhai C Shah, a Goa resident and lifetime member of the SDCA under its Family Patron Category.

Shah claimed that he had regularly paid membership and maintenance charges to the Association but that his membership was terminated despite his willingness to clear any outstanding dues.

According to Shah, he had paid ₹4,000 in April 2010 and ₹12,000 in April 2013 through cheques that were encashed by the Association.

However, in April 2015, the Association demanded ₹20,000 towards outstanding maintenance charges and warned that membership could be cancelled for continuous non-payment.

Shah alleged that the Association subsequently refused to accept payments made through his representative. He also claimed that a cheque for ₹25,000 sent towards the outstanding dues was not encashed.

He approached the Surat District Consumer Forum seeking restoration of his membership, acceptance of the outstanding fees and ₹25,000 as compensation for mental harassment and deficiency in service.

However, the District Forum dismissed his complaint on April 24, 2018, on the preliminary ground of maintainability, without examining the merits of the dispute.

Shah challenged the decision before the State Commission.

The Association argued that the ₹12,000 paid in 2013 related to maintenance charges for earlier financial years and could not be adjusted against subsequent dues.

It maintained that ₹20,000 remained outstanding for the financial years 2013-14 to 2015-16 and that a valid resolution terminating Shah's membership had been passed.

Before examining the merits of these arguments, the Commission examined whether Shah could be treated as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, and whether the dispute could be entertained under the said consumer protection law.

It noted that the Association provided cultural activities, sports activities, indoor games and other recreational facilities to members against payment of membership and maintenance fees.

The Commission concluded that such facilities constituted services under the Consumer Protection Act and that Shah qualified as a consumer.

It also found that the District Forum had mechanically relied on an earlier decision involving a membership card without examining the specific circumstances of Shah's complaint.

The Commission observed that the dispute involved documentary evidence concerning payments, outstanding dues, correspondence and the alleged termination of membership, all of which required examination.

Accordingly, it partly allowed Shah's appeal and set aside the District Forum's order.

The matter was remanded to the District Commission, Surat, for fresh adjudication after allowing both parties to present evidence.

The State Commission clarified that it had expressed no opinion on whether Shah had actually cleared his dues or whether the termination of his membership was valid.

The parties have been directed to appear before the District Commission on November 6, 2026.

Advocate PH Thakkar represented the appellant.

Advocate Milan Dudhiya appeared for the Association.

[Read Judgment]