A fantasy cricket contest winner who missed the 2018 ICC Women’s T20 World Cup final in the West Indies as he could not secure a visa is not entitled to compensation from the fantasy cricket platform, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled.
Setting aside orders of the district and Haryana state consumer commissions that had directed the platform to pay around Rs 2 lakh, the national commission held that obtaining a travel visa was the responsibility of the contest winner under the terms of the prize, The Indian Express reported.
The NCDRC, comprising president A P Sahi and member Bharatkumar Pandya, said that assistance provided by the fantasy cricket platform during the visa process did not transfer the contractual responsibility for obtaining the visa to the company.
According to The Indian Express, the September 22 order held that the platform’s subsequent offer to allow the winner to attend a cricket match in Australia or another country could not, by itself, be treated as an admission of deficiency or an unfair trade practice.
Contest winner misses West Indies trip
According to the complaint, the man won an online contest conducted by the fantasy cricket platform. The prize included a trip to the West Indies to watch the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup final, which was scheduled to be played on November 24, 2018.
The prize allowed the winner to take one person of his choice along with him.
The man alleged that the platform had undertaken to make the travel arrangements but failed to secure the visa required for the trip. As a result, he could not travel to the West Indies and use the prize, The Indian Express reported.
He later claimed that the platform acknowledged the failure and offered him an alternative trip to Australia or another country to watch a cricket match.
The winner declined the revised offer and instead issued a legal notice seeking relief.
Platform says visa was winner’s responsibility
The fantasy cricket platform maintained that its terms and conditions clearly placed the responsibility for obtaining the visa on the contest winner.
According to The Indian Express, the platform’s lawyers argued that while the company had assisted the man with the visa process, such assistance did not mean that it had assumed responsibility for securing the visa.
The platform also said visa issuance was beyond its control as the final decision rested with the concerned embassy.
It said the subsequent offer to reimburse the winner for a trip to Australia or another country was made as a goodwill gesture and was not an admission that the company had committed a deficiency in service.
The man’s lawyers took a different position. They argued that although the formal responsibility for applying for the visa rested with him, the platform had handled the procurement process and had effectively acknowledged its failure by apologising and making an alternative offer.
NCDRC says visa obligation did not shift
The national commission sided with the platform on the central issue. It found that the terms and conditions of the prize scheme had been overlooked by the district and state commissions.
According to the NCDRC, those conditions expressly placed the responsibility for securing the travel visa on the winner.
The commission said that even if the platform had undertaken to facilitate the visa process, including assistance with documentation, that did not transfer the contractual obligation to obtain the visa.
“The visa was to be provided by the concerned embassy and not by the petitioners,” The Indian Express quoted the commission as saying.
It further held that the platform’s assistance during the process could not automatically be treated as a deficiency in service merely because the visa was ultimately not granted.
Alternative cricket trip not an admission of fault
The NCDRC also considered the alternative travel offer made by the platform after the original trip could not take place. The commission said the offer to facilitate a trip to Australia or another country to watch a cricket match was a goodwill gesture and could not, by itself, be characterised as an unfair trade practice.
The winner had chosen not to accept that alternative.
The commission held that treating the refusal of the alternative offer as another instance of deficiency was also erroneous.
Rs 2.05 lakh award set aside
The district consumer commission ruled in favour of the winner on February 25, 2020 and directed the fantasy cricket platform to pay around Rs 2.05 lakh towards stay-related expenses and litigation costs.
The Haryana State Consumer Commission subsequently dismissed the platform’s appeal.
The NCDRC has now set aside both orders, describing the findings of the lower consumer commissions as “manifestly illegal”.
Takeaway
The order notes the importance of reading the terms attached to promotional contests and prize schemes, particularly where international travel is involved. Where the terms expressly place responsibility for obtaining a visa on the winner, assistance from the organiser with documentation or the application process may not, by itself, shift that legal responsibility to the organiser.