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

4 min readNew DelhiJun 16, 2026 01:30 PM IST

The commission said that the hotel's failure to refund the balance amount even after issuing a legal notice caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant. (AI-generated image)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ranga Reddy has directed a hotel in Hyderabad to refund Rs 36,000 and pay Rs 10,000 compensation plus Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses after a retired bank manager alleged that the hotel failed to provide the quality of accommodation it had promised for his son’s engagement and wedding functions.

A bench of president Chitneni Latha Kumari and members Madhavi Sasanakota and Kathyayani Khandavilli observed that collecting the advance amount and not providing quality of service and required rooms clearly amounts to a deficiency of service.

“The failure of the Opposite Party to refund the balance amount even after legal notice caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant,” the bench noted in its order dated May 26.

‘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.

Story continues below this ad

“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.

Story continues below this ad

“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.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience.

Expertise

Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents.

Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes:

Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity.

Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes:

Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law.

Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates.

Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More

Tags:

consumer court

hotel

room