Engineering student leaves hostel in 7 days over poor food, no wifi, wins Rs 40,000

“Accepting upfront commercial charges while failing to provide basic, habitable amenities like palatable food and internet connectivity constitutes a classic case of Deficiency in Service under the Consumer Protection Act,” the commission said on June 25.

According to the complaint, Aryan Rawat secured admission to the B Tech programme at IILM University, Greater Noida, on August 17, 2023. Looking for accommodation, he opted for Nalanda Living Hostel the same day and paid an advance amount of Rs 35,000 for an air-conditioned room. The hostel allegedly promised quality food, uninterrupted Wi-Fi connectivity and regular maintenance, convincing the student to choose its accommodation.

Poor food, no Wi-Fi forced student to leave

The student alleged that within days of moving in, he encountered several problems. According to the complaint, the food served was sub-standard, maintenance of the premises was neglected and the promised Wi-Fi facility was never activated as the password was not shared despite repeated requests.

On August 23, 2023, barely a week after joining the hostel, Rawat informed the hostel manager that he wished to discontinue his stay because of these shortcomings. The manager allegedly assured him that the advance amount would be refunded after deducting charges for the one-week stay. But despite repeated phone calls and reminders, no refund was made, prompting the student to approach the consumer commission.

Hostel chose not to contest complaint

The commission noted that notices were duly served upon the hostel management, but it failed to appear before the forum despite service. As a result, the hostel was proceeded against ex parte.

The bench observed that since the opposite party chose not to contest the proceedings, the complainant’s evidence remained unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted, leaving no reason to disbelieve the documentary evidence placed on record.

Clear deficiency in service

• Examining the payment receipt and other documents, the commission held that the hostel had accepted a substantial advance amount but failed to provide even the basic amenities that had been promised.
• It observed that such conduct squarely fell within the definition of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
• The commission further noted that the complainant had been compelled to vacate the hostel within one week because of the uninhabitable conditions.
• While recognising that the student had stayed in the hostel for seven days, the commission considered it reasonable to deduct Rs 5,000 towards the week’s accommodation charges and directed that the remaining Rs 30,000 be refunded.
• The commission held that accepting advance payments while failing to provide essential and promised facilities could not be justified.
• It ordered the hostel to compensate the student for the inconvenience and harassment caused by its deficient service.

Consumer takeaway

Students and parents who pay advance hostel fees based on promises of quality food, Wi-Fi and other amenities can approach consumer commissions if those assurances are not fulfilled. A hostel cannot retain substantial advance payments while providing deficient services. Keeping receipts and records of promised facilities can significantly strengthen a consumer’s case. Consumer forums can order refunds, interest and compensation where deficiency in service is proved.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh helpline: 1800-180-8087) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.