The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has overturned previous directives ordering a fantasy cricket platform to pay compensation to a contest winner who missed an overseas cricket final due to visa issues, ruling that the legal obligation to secure travel clearance rests entirely with the traveller.
Setting aside earlier rulings by Haryana consumer forums that had granted more than Rs 2 lakh to the complainant, a bench comprising President A P Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya declared those decisions manifestly illegal for disregarding the competition’s explicit terms and conditions.
In its September 22 order, the apex consumer commission held that contest guidelines placed the duty of securing a travel visa exclusively on the participant. The bench clarified that while the platform had assisted the winner with documentation and application procedures, such facilitation did not shift contractual liability or create a deficiency in service, as visas are issued solely at the discretion of the relevant embassy.
Goodwill Gesture Not an Admission of Deficiency
Addressing the platform’s subsequent attempt to resolve the matter, the commission affirmed that offering an alternative trip to Australia or another nation was a reasonable gesture of goodwill rather than an acknowledgment of fault. The bench noted that the complainant had voluntarily declined this compensatory arrangement, and treating the platform’s remedial offer as evidence of wrongdoing was a flawed interpretation of consumer law.
Origins of the Dispute
The matter stemmed from an online competition organised by the fantasy sports platform ahead of the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup final, held in the West Indies on November 24, 2018. Under the prize terms, the winner was entitled to travel to the match alongside a chosen companion, with the platform agreeing to arrange the travel itinerary.
However, the winner was unable to utilise the prize after failing to obtain a travel visa. Following the cancellation, the platform proposed sending him to another country, including Australia, to watch a match. The man rejected the substitute offer, issued a legal notice, and subsequently initiated legal proceedings alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.
Conflicting Arguments Before the Commission
Before the national commission, advocates Praveen Mahajan and Utkarsh, representing the fantasy cricket platform, maintained that the company bore no legal duty to secure the participant’s travel entry. They argued that visa issuance remained entirely beyond the platform’s authority and that their subsequent travel offer was purely a measure to preserve business goodwill, not an admission of legal liability.
Conversely, advocates Arihant Jain and Utsav Garg, appearing for the complainant, contended that because the platform had assumed responsibility for managing the visa procurement process, its subsequent apology and revised offer constituted a formal admission of failure. They argued before the bench that this inability to deliver the promised travel benefits reflected unfair trade conduct.
Prior Legal Proceedings
The legal battle began when the complainant approached a district consumer forum, which ruled in his favour on February 25, 2020. The district commission directed the fantasy platform to pay Rs 2.05 lakh to cover stay and litigation expenses. An appeal filed by the company before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was subsequently dismissed, prompting the platform to approach the national commission.
The NCDRC concluded that consumer protection mechanisms require that legitimate grievances receive prompt attention without causing unnecessary harassment, noting that consumers with unresolved complaints may seek guidance through their respective state and Union territory helplines or contact the National Consumer Helpline at 1915.
