Complainant M/s Kerala Cricket Association has filed instant consumer complaint against the opposite party insurance company and its authorized officer alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim filed by the complainant due to loss suffered on account of -2- one day cricket match between India and Australia scheduled on 17.10.2010 at Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium at Kochi due to heavy rains. 2. On perusal of the complaint it is doubtful whether the complainant is a consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and if not whether the consumer complaint is maintainable under the Act. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant on maintainability. In view of the above it is clear that in order to successfully maintain the instant complaint the association has to show that the association is a consumer within the meaning of the Act. 4. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act reads as under: - "consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the -3- person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes; Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment” 5. On reading of the above definition it is evident that a person is a consumer who buys any goods for consideration or hires any services for consideration and also includes a user of such goods or a beneficiary of such services. To this vide definition the section itself provides an exclusion and it excludes a person from the definition of consumer who obtains such goods for resale or any commercial purpose or who avails services of any description free of charge or under a contract of personal service for any commercial purpose. The legislature has also provided for a further exception by providing the explanation envisaging that commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and the services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. -4- 6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant is squarely covered under the above definition of “Consumer” for the reason that the complainant is not indulging in any business activity and it is a non-profit earning society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It is further contended that the instant complaint is based on the deficiency in service in respect of an insurance contract. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of M/s Harsolia Motors vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. in a batch of appeals including first appeal No.159/2004 decided on 3.12.2004, the complainant is a consumer as envisaged in the definition and he is entitled to maintain the consumer complaint. 7. There is no merit in the contention of the complainant. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the relevant special contingency insurance policy in Airtel Cup 2010 one day international cricket tournament to be played between India and Australia from 17.9.2010 to 17.10.2010. This policy apart from other covenants contains the following terms: - -5- “NOW THIS POLICYWITNESSETH THAT subject to the terms, conditions provisions and exceptions contained herein, the insurer will indemnity the insured in respect of actual financial loss sustained by the insured on account of loss of irrecoverable expenses and loss of revenues, as evidenced by audited accounts to be furnished by the insured and duly verified and relevant details brought out by the Company’s authorized representative, due to cancellation and/or abandonement of the event i.e. cricket tournament Airtel Cup 2010 IST ODI- for the period of insurance from 17.9.2010 to 17.10.2010 to be played between India vs. Australia on 17.10.2010 at Jawanarlal Nehru Stadium, Kochi, as described in the schedule caused by: - 8. On reading of the above, it is clear that under the policy contract the opposite party insurance company had agreed to indemnify the complainant cricket association in respect of actual financial loss sustained by the insured on account of loss irrecoverable expenses and loss of revenues as evidenced by the audited account to be furnished by the insured. Thus, it is clear that the insurance cover taken by the complainant association was to cover against future losses including the loss of revenues because of some unforeseen event resulting in cancellation or abandonment of the schedule one day international match. Thus, it is clear that the services of the opposite parties were availed by the complainant for commercial purpose i.e. against the unexpected revenue loss due to abandonment or cancellation of the one -7- day international match. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged in the definition under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. 9. The complainant in support of the contention has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Harsolia Motors (supra). We have perused the said judgment wherein the Co-ordinate Bench after analyzing the dictionary meaning of the term “Consumer” and discussing Halsbury’s Law of England Vo. 25, 4th Edition dealing with the origin and common principles of insurance as also judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) 1 SCC 98, Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 and the matter of New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Sohan Lal Sachdev (Dead) represented through his wife (2000) 2 SCC 495 has held as under: - Further, from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that even taking wide meaning of the words for any commercial purpose it would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose. But, in a case where goods purchased or services hired in an activity which is -8- not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be commercial purpose. “ In this view of the matter, a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification and actual loss. It is not intended to generate profit.” 10. On reading of the above finding it is clear that as per ratio of the Harsolia Motors (supra) in order to find answer to the question whether the services availed were for commercial purpose is, whether the services availed were in respect of any activity directly intended to generate profits. In the instant case as per the term of insurance policy the insurance cover was taken to hedge against any unforeseen loss of income and revenue due to cancellation or abandonment of the one day international match which was supposed to general income for the complainant. Thus, it is clear that the services of the insurance company were availed for commercial purpose with the main aim to hedge against the loss of revenue and income and as such the complainant is not covered under the definition of “Consumer” as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Act. -9- 11. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer. As such he cannot maintain the consumer complaint under the Act. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected as not maintainable. The complainant, however, can approach the appropriate forum if so desires for availing its legal remedy. | 
