IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 12.06.2024 Date of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 430/2024 IN THE MATTER OF AKASH GOEL

393, SFS FLATS ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-4 NEW DELHI 110052 (Appellant in person )

Versus COMMISSIONER (SPORTS)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPORTS WING, COORDINATION CELL, SIRI FORT SPORTS COMPLEX, AUGUST KRANTI MARG DELHI 110049 (Through: Ms. Mansi Bajaj, Advocate)

……Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Appellant in person Mr. Saatvik Khurana, proxy counsel for Ms. Mansi Bajaj, counsel for the respondent. (Enrl. No. D/9208/2023, Ph. No. 9818000003, e-mail id –

mansi.bajaj@mblegalassociates)

PER :HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“Briefly, the complainant applied to OP/DDA to add name of his wife as dependent member in respect of sport complex and facility, the complainant was asked for marriage registration certificate (of marriage on 22.11.2023), it was also provided. However, the application was not accepted by OP/DDA. On 11.01.2024 complainant had paid membership charges till March 2025.

The complainant filed complaint and appeal with DDA but both the complaint and appeal were dismissed by invoking the bye-laws. There is violation of principle of natural justice and there is unfair contract, therefore, the amount fee is required to be refunded. The complainant seeks refund of the amount of Rs. 120/- with interest from OP/DDA, besides litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/-, for loss of time of Rs. 15,000/- and other appropriate relief.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 07.06.2024, whereby it held as under:

“The contentions of complainant are considered, keeping in view, prima facie, the contents of complaint and documents. The complaint is rejected for the following reason:-

(1) The complainant mentions that the application was rejected and fee was not refunded by invoking the bye- laws, there are no reservations in the complaint in respect to such bye-laws.

1) The complainant is also making allegations that there is unfair contract, however, complaint against unfair contract are subject matter of section 47 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and it is within the jurisdiction of State Commission vis-à-vis the refund of the fee is being sought while not opposing the bye-laws (ii) The complaint is without cause of action and it is barred by law.

Accordingly, complaint fails and it is rejected. File be consigned to record room after proper pagination. Free dasti copy be given to Complainant”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has submitted that the District Commission has noted that bye-laws of the Opposite Party have not been invoked in the Complaint. It is submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate that Opposite Party did not provide citation, nor provided copy of the Bye-Laws to the Complainant. Secondly, it is submitted that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that Consumer Commission is not a Writ Court where Bye- Laws of Opposite Party can be impugned. Thirdly, it is submitted that the District Commission has taken an extremely technical view even though Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly exhorts Consumer Commissions to look at the facts in summary fashion, which have been so clearly established in the Complaint. Fourthly, it is submitted that the Appellant got married on 22.11.2023 and applied for the addition of his wife as a dependant member on 27.11.2023 and the application was not accepted by the Respondent citing the need for the Marriage Registration Certificate. It is further submitted that the Appellant could get the Marriage Registration Certificate only on 22.12.2023, after which his wife was added as