Hotel ordered to pay Rs 51,000 after customer finds rooms ‘unhygienic’ ahead of son’s wedding

‘Unhygienic’ hotel rooms

• The complainant alleged that he had booked 13 deluxe rooms and two suite rooms for his son’s marriage functions scheduled in August and September 2023 and paid an advance of Rs 50,000.
• After the events were rescheduled to December 2023, he informed the hotel and sought corresponding changes in the bookings.
• The complainant, however, stated that when he used a room in August 2023 and later inspected additional rooms in November 2023, he found them unhygienic and inferior to the standards represented by the hotel.
• Fearing embarrassment before relatives and guests during family functions, he arranged alternative accommodation elsewhere.
• The complainant sought a refund of the advance amount after deducting charges for rooms he had already used.
• He alleged that despite repeated requests and a legal notice, the hotel failed to return the balance amount of Rs 36,000.
• The hotel did not contest the proceedings and was set ex parte by the commission.

Deficiency in service

The commission observed that when a service provider fails to maintain the standards and facilities assured at the time of offering services, it amounts to a deficiency in service.

It noted that there was no material on record to discredit the complainant’s version regarding the poor hygienic conditions and inferior quality of rooms.

The commission held that collecting the advance amount and not providing quality of service amounted to deficiency in service. It remarked that the complainant was constrained to make alternative arrangements for the engagement and marriage functions of his son due to dissatisfaction with the services of the hotel.

The commission added that the failure of the hotel to refund the balance amount even after legal notice caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to refund of the balance amount together with reasonable compensation and costs,” the commission held.

The commission ordered the hotel to refund Rs 36,000 with interest from the date of filing of the complaint. It also directed to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Rs 5k refund after ‘Pushpa 2’ screening

In another case, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad, directed a cinema theatre in Telangana to refund a moviegoer’s ticket amount and pay Rs 5,000 after the complainant, a lawyer, alleged that the air-cooling system in the theatre was not functioning during a screening of the movie ‘Pushpa 2’.

A bench of president Vakkanti Narasimha Rao and members P V T R Jawahar Babu and D Sreedevi held the theatre liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

“That the material available on the record and the inconsistent dual stand taken by the opposite party it self-sufficient to prove that the opposite party made the complainant and his family members to suffer while watching the movie and thus held responsible for the acts of deficiency and unfair trade practice,” the bench observed in its order dated May 20.