Fantasy gamer loses Rs 2 lakh payout claim over missed 2018 cricket World Cup final

“The petitioners (the fantasy cricket platform) may have made an effort to help the complainant (the man), but that cannot amount to a transfer of an obligation or a deficiency on their part. If the visa was not offered to the complainant, the help rendered by the petitioners in aid thereof cannot be countenanced as a deficiency. We fail to understand that such facilitation can ever be presumed to be a deficiency. The visa was to be provided by the concerned embassy and not by the petitioners,” the September 22 order read.

The NCDRC further observed, “Apart from this, the offer of a goodwill gesture by requesting the complainant (the man) to avail of a travel to witness a cricket match in Australia or any other country also cannot be termed to be something unfair.”

Justice A P Sahi (president) and member Bharatkumar Pandya held that the winner of the contest was responsible for getting the visa.

The man claimed that the fantasy cricket platform had conducted an online contest and its winner secured a trip to the West Indies where the final match of the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup was to be hosted on November 24, 2018. The man stated that the offer under the prize was that the winner could travel along with one person of their choice.

The complainant alleged that though he won the prize and the fantasy cricket platform had undertaken to make all travel arrangements, it failed to secure him a visa, because of which he could not enjoy the benefits of the prize.

According to the man, the cricket platform had admitted to its failure and made a revised offer under which he could visit Australia or choose another country to watch a cricket match. The man declined the revised offer and instead sent a legal notice to the platform.

The platform responded to the notice and stated that the man had to procure the visa himself as per the terms of the prize, and his refusal of the subsequent offer to visit Australia, which was extended by the platform as a goodwill gesture, had neither resulted in a deficiency of service on their part nor was it an unfair conduct.

The man then filed a consumer complaint with the district commission, which was decided in his favour on February 25, 2020, and the fantasy cricket platform was directed to pay Rs 2.05 lakh to him for stay and litigation expenses. The cricket platform further filed an appeal before the Haryana state consumer commission, which was dismissed.

‘Gesture for goodwill’

Advocates Praveen Mahajan and Utkarsh, appearing for the fantasy cricket platform, argued that it had no legal obligation to arrange the man’s visa and that, as per the terms and conditions, he was responsible for securing his own visa.

The counsel further urged that the visa could not be arranged despite their assistance in the process and since the visa availability was beyond the cricket platform’s control, they would still reimburse the man for watching a match in Australia or any other match in another country. The counsel contended that the revised offer was not “an admission of guilt” but a good gesture to maintain the goodwill of the platform.

Advocate Arihant Jain and Utsav Garg, representing the man, submitted that even though it was the man who had to apply for the visa, the process of procurement was being looked after by the platform and the apology given by them was “an admission of the fact that it was their failure to procure the visa resulting in the deprivation of the travel benefit” to the man.

The counsel argued that the “goodwill gesture” was a clear indication that the fantasy platform had acted unfairly and had been deficient in service.

‘Manifestly illegal’

The national commission stated that the terms and conditions of the prize scheme have been totally overlooked by the state and the district commissions, “the conditions clearly stipulate that the responsibility for securing a travel visa is exclusively of the winner of the competition”.

“If the petitioners (the fantasy cricket platform) had undertaken to facilitate the procurement of the visa, say its documentation etc, the obligation and the liability under the terms of the contract to procure a visa did not stand transferred on them,” it noted. The bench said the platform’s revised off was “not an admission of any deficiency and is rather an offer which cannot be per se termed as an unfair trade practice”.

Observing that the man “willingly did not accept this compensatory offer” and even that aspect had also been “erroneously” called an alleged deficiency on the part of the cricket platform, the national commission set aside the order of the district and state commissions, terming it “manifestly illegal”.

Takeaway

The ruling establishes that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

AIIMS Rishikesh ordered to pay Rs 60,000 after ‘wrongly declaring’ man as HIV positive

Man wins Rs 17.62 lakh as Covid derails plans for daughter’s wedding at 5-star Delhi hotel

Nearly 6 lakh cases pending in consumer commissions, over 860 posts vacant: Centre