“The cancellation was for a valid reason, and it was done about a month in advance. State Commission has specifically observed that the appellant (the hotel) has not provided any evidence regarding alleged loss of Rs 17.70 lakh. The District Commission was justified in observing that in the given facts and circumstances, out of a total amount of Rs 5.31 lakh, after deducting Rs 2.31 lakh for the loss,” the commission said on September 23.
The dispute began after Garg booked two halls at the hotel for his daughter’s wedding ceremonies scheduled for June 29 and June 30, 2018. The total package was fixed at Rs 17.70 lakh, with separate agreements or memoranda of understanding executed for the two bookings.
Rs 5.31 lakh paid for wedding bookings
Garg paid Rs 81,000 for the June 29 function and Rs 4.50 lakh for June 30, 2018, taking the total amount to Rs 5.31 lakh. Under the agreements, 30 per cent of the amount was non-refundable and the booking kept the venues blocked until the functions. On May 25, 2018, Garg cancelled both bookings, citing unavoidable circumstances and sought a refund, but the hotel refused, relying on the non-refundable clause.
The Ghaziabad District Consumer Commission allowed Garg’s complaint on June 30, 2023, directing the hotel to pay Rs 3 lakh from the Rs 5.31 lakh deposit for the wedding, along with Rs 5,000 towards mental harassment and litigation costs. It allowed Rs 2.31 lakh to be retained towards the loss the hotel was considered to have suffered and noted that the planned facilities and services had not been used.
The hotel challenged the decision before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission, which dismissed the appeal on September 10, 2024, and upheld the order. It noted that the booking was cancelled on May 25, 2018, before the scheduled functions and that the hotel had not produced evidence to support its alleged Rs 17.70 lakh loss.
Story continues below this ad
National commission declines to disturb findings
The hotel then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, challenging the refund despite the conditional clause. The commission said its revisional powers were limited and found no reason to disturb the earlier findings of the consumer forums.
Acknowledging that Garg had agreed to the cancellation terms, it also considered that the terms were standard, the cancellation was made about a month in advanc,e and the hotel had not produced evidence of its claimed Rs 17.70 lakh loss.
The commission partly modified the earlier orders. It retained the Rs 3 lakh refund but removed the Rs 5,000 awarded for mental agony and litigation costs. The hotel was directed to pay Rs 3 lakh with 6 per cent annual interest from June 30, 2023, until payment. Both sides were ordered to bear their own litigation costs.
Takeaway
If you cancel a hotel or wedding venue booking, a non-refundable clause does not automatically mean the hotel can keep the entire advance. In this case, the consumer commission considered the timing of the cancellation and the hotel’s failure to provide evidence for its claimed loss.
Story continues below this ad
Do not miss out on these stories:
Luxury car destroyed in fire after puncture on highway, insurer to pay owner Rs 71 lakh
Rs 333 railway room, wrong toilet, Rs 20,000 compensation for 72-year-old man
Developer to refund Delhi man Rs 38 lakh for making him wait 20 years for plot
