Consumer court rejects complaint over denial of entry to transgender person in UAE
Observing that an Embassy does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, the district consumer disputes redressal commission dismissed a complaint by a transgender person who was not permitted entry into United Arab Emirates.
The commission said that while visa service includes fees, it is a sovereign process and cannot be considered a deficiency in service. The commission said that therefore such a complaint cannot be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act.
The complainant was part of the Kinnar Ma organisation and had planned to go to UAE in February 2024. They were given a visa and made other arrangements like travel insurance, air tickets to travel.
On February 1, 2024, they reached UAE and were standing at the immigration. They were then approached by authorities who told them that transgender persons are not permitted in the country. They had to take a return flight and come back to India. They approached the consumer commission with a complaint against the Consulate General of United Arab Emirates and Merc travel agency, seeking compensation and refund for their losses, including in travel costs and return flight tickets.
They submitted that despite such a rule, they were given a visa and the travel agency also failed to inform them about the rule and hence said that it was a deficiency in service.
The commission also said that a prior consent is required from the government to file a complaint, which is rarely given. The order was given last month and made available on Monday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-05-2025
- Business Standard
SC urges Centre to set up permanent bodies for timely consumer redressal
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to consider setting up a permanent forum for consumer disputes and file a report within three months, stressing the need for permanent staff Prateek Shukla New Delhi The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21) asked the central government to respond within three months about the possibility of setting up a permanent forum to handle consumer disputes. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and MM Sundresh said that consumer rights are rooted in the Constitution, and therefore, there should be no reason to have temporary appointments for staff, members, and presidents of consumer forums. "The Union of India is directed to file an affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a consumer tribunal or a consumer court, within a period of three months from today, on the touchstone of the constitutional mandate." These directions were issued while hearing a petition that pointed out shortcomings in how the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is being enforced. Suggestion for structure and leadership While leaving it to the Centre's discretion to introduce comprehensive reforms, the SC bench stressed the urgent need for a lasting institutional structure. Need for security of tenure The bench pointed out that permanent appointments at all levels — including presidents and members — could give the consumer bodies more stability. "The security of tenure attached to an office administering justice enhances its efficiency and functionality. Any person appointed to an office with a fixed tenure would not be as motivated as one appointed on a permanent basis." According to the court, having temporary roles may reduce the quality of decisions made, ultimately affecting consumers. Timely and quality justice essential The judges observed that consumers deserve timely and quality decisions from these forums. They also noted that such decisions reflect positively on the broader idea of consumer protection. "A consumer is ideally expected to get a qualitative and timely decision from the consumer forum concerned. Such a decision is the best advertisement for the concept of consumerism. We feel that the time has come to effect a change in mindset qua revamping the tenure of office in Consumer fora." The court added that permanent positions would help build and strengthen the idea of consumerism in the country. The apex court encouraged detailed evaluation and appropriate action. "We may also point out that though provisions for taking action against those who have erred is part of the current legal framework, there is no clear mechanism available, similar to the one provided for under Article 227 of the Constitution. At this juncture, we deem it fit to suggest that the Union of India may consider increasing the strength of Consumer fora at all levels."
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Time of India
‘Can't interfere': Trans person's plea on UAE entry denial junked
Mumbai: Observing that issuing a visa is a sovereign function and cannot be considered a deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act, a consumer commission recently dismissed a complaint filed by a transgender person against the consulate general of UAE in Mumbai after they were denied entry into Dubai. It held that even with a valid visa issued by the UAE, the final decision on entry rests with the immigration authorities of the destination country. "Even though the visa service includes fees, a direct claim or complaint cannot be filed against the embassy under Consumer Protection Act... But since [the consulate] is a sovereign authority of another country, it is our opinion that this complaint cannot be maintained before this commission under Consumer Protection Act," the commission said, adding that the Act's scope is limited to Indian territory. Pointing out that embassies are protected by sovereign immunity, it said filing a direct complaint against a foreign embassy is not easily permissible and often requires consent of the Indian govt under Civil Procedure Code, which is rarely granted. In a Feb 13, 2024, complaint, Vikhroli-based Salim alias Salma Umar Khan Sakharkar, chairperson of Kinnar Maa Ek Samajik Sanstha Trust, said they were stopped at Dubai immigration and told that transgender persons are not allowed to enter the city on Feb 1 that year. They said they paid Rs 5.2 lakh for a five-day trip with two companions, which included visa processing by the UAE consulate in Mumbai, and argued that denial of entry after the consulate approved their visa constituted unfair and defective service. They sought a public apology from the consulate, a full refund of the tour cost and the return flight ticket, Rs 20 lakh in compensation for mental harassment, and Rs 10,000 for litigation costs. The commission acknowledged that the consulate approved the visa after the complainant paid the necessary fees, but said denial of entry is at the discretion of Dubai immigration officials upon arrival. It said the complainant did not qualify as a consumer of the UAE consulate in this context, and the Dubai immigration authorities' act in denying entry did not constitute a deficiency in service by the consulate under Consumer Protection Act. It said had the consulate issued a visa despite having rules against issuing one to transgender persons, then it could be seen as incorrect information or negligence. The UAE consulate in Mumbai did not appear before the commission despite being sent a notice.
Indian Express
19-05-2025
- Indian Express
Consumer court rejects complaint over denial of entry to transgender person in UAE
Observing that an Embassy does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, the district consumer disputes redressal commission dismissed a complaint by a transgender person who was not permitted entry into United Arab Emirates. The commission said that while visa service includes fees, it is a sovereign process and cannot be considered a deficiency in service. The commission said that therefore such a complaint cannot be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was part of the Kinnar Ma organisation and had planned to go to UAE in February 2024. They were given a visa and made other arrangements like travel insurance, air tickets to travel. On February 1, 2024, they reached UAE and were standing at the immigration. They were then approached by authorities who told them that transgender persons are not permitted in the country. They had to take a return flight and come back to India. They approached the consumer commission with a complaint against the Consulate General of United Arab Emirates and Merc travel agency, seeking compensation and refund for their losses, including in travel costs and return flight tickets. They submitted that despite such a rule, they were given a visa and the travel agency also failed to inform them about the rule and hence said that it was a deficiency in service. The commission also said that a prior consent is required from the government to file a complaint, which is rarely given. The order was given last month and made available on Monday.
