Kerala

StateCommission

CC/15/147

T N ANANTHANARAYANAN HONARARY SECRETARY KERALA CRICKET ASSOSIATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

N NARAYANASWAMY

07 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

CC. NO.147/15

ORDER DATED:07.01.2019

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A                                           : MEMBER

Kerala Cricket Association,

R/by its Honarary Secretary,

Mr. T.N. Ananthanarayanan,

KCA Complex, Sasthamkovil Road,

Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram,

Kerala.                                                                                   : COMPLAINANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. P.T. Joseph)

 

            Vs.

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

R/by its General Manager,

Mumbai City Divisional Office No.8,

New Marine Line, Maker Bhavan, No.1,                        : OPPOSITE PARTY

5^th floor, Churchgare, Mumbai-400 020.

 

(By Adv: Sri. V. Manikantan Nair)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN – PRESIDENT

          Complainant arranged an one Day International Cricket Match between India and Australia and it was scheduled to be held on 17.10.2010 at Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium at Kochi, Kerala.  Complainant took a special contingency insurance policy from the opposite party against cancellation/abandonment of the match for a sum of Rs.750/-lakhs paying its premium.  The match was abandoned and thereupon complainant filed a claim for a sum of Rs.3,18,08,078/- as the loss caused by the cancellation of the match.  Opposite party/insurance company after conducting enquiries and verifying records produced allowed the claim for Rs.23,19,650/-. A full and final settlement of the claim was endorsed, but, according to complainant with protest.  Complaint is filed claiming balance sum under the original claim raised before the insurance company imputing deficiency in service.

 Opposite party has filed a version resisting the claim in which among other contentions status of the complainant as a consumer and also jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaint is challenged.  Over and above disputing the claim on various grounds it is also contended that the dispute raised can not be summarily decided in proceedings under the Commission as it required consideration of voluminous evidence from both sides.

Preliminary objection raised by the opposite party challenging the jurisdiction of the forum was taken up initially for consideration and the counsel on both sides were heard.  So far as the status of the complainant as a consumer the attack of the opposite party is that the match was organised for making profit and as such it was engaged in commercial activity.  We notice that the complainant is an association registered under Act 12 of 1955 and its objectives are to instill, promote, propagate, popularise, regulate, conduct cricket in the state of Kerala.  Among other activities if it is conducting an international match to promote cricket does not imply it was doing so as commercial activity.  We find no merit questioning the status of complainant as a consumer defined under 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The next limb of attack assailing the entertainability of complaint is that plethora of evidence is required to resolve the dispute raised by the complainant cannot be given much significance at this stage.  In case the enquiry reveals that minute appreciation of questions involved raising issues on the grounds of allegations in the complainant and contentions of the opposite party, no doubt, it is open to this Commission to pass appropriate orders at that stage directing the complainant to approach the competent civil court for the relief canvassed for.  At this stage the preliminary objection raised on the above ground can not be appreciated.  Reserving the right of the opposite party to raise the objection that the disputes involved in the complainant cannot be summarily decided after recording of evidence in the case, the preliminary objections raised are negatived.  We make it clear the order as above is without prejudice to the right of the opposite party to raise the objection over summary trial at the appropriate stage as indicated.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

BEENAKUMARI.A : MEMBER

 

VL.