The Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has delivered a significant ruling, asserting that a business cannot escape liability for deficient service by merely refunding an advance payment after denying a confirmed booking. The decision came in a case involving a Manali resort that turned away a Gurgaon family despite a prior settlement guaranteeing their stay.
Resort Ordered to Pay ₹31,000 Compensation
The commission, comprising President Sanjeev Jindal and members Jyoti Siwach and Khushwinder Kaur, ordered The Allure Grand Resort, Manali, to pay ₹31,000 in compensation. This amount includes ₹20,000 for mental harassment, pain, and agony, and an additional ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses. The resort has 45 days to comply, failing which the amount will accrue 12% annual interest.
Background of the Denied Hotel Booking
The dispute originated from an earlier consumer complaint settled on March 15, 2021. Under that agreement, the resort had committed to providing the complainant a four-night stay with a 40% discount as a full and final resolution. Relying on this assurance, the family booked their stay from October 5 to October 9, 2021, paid an advance of ₹10,000 against a total tariff of ₹30,400, and travelled from Gurgaon to Manali.
Upon arrival, however, the family was denied accommodation. While the resort refunded the ₹10,000 advance, it allegedly provided no assistance in finding alternative lodging, leaving the family stranded. The complainant subsequently filed a new case, citing a clear deficiency in service.
Commission Rejects Refund as Full Resolution
The resort's defense, arguing that the refund had resolved the issue, was explicitly rejected by the commission. The bench observed, "It is also an admitted fact that the complainant travelled a long distance from Gurgaon to Manali and after having been returned the amount of ₹10,000... was left high and dry." The commission further noted that the resort ignored repeated requests for assistance, inflicting "considerable mental agony and harassment" upon the family.
The ruling underscores that businesses are accountable for the hardship caused by failing to honor confirmed bookings, especially when such failures lead to financial loss, inconvenience, and emotional distress. This judgment reinforces consumer rights, ensuring that companies cannot use a mere refund to absolve themselves of broader liabilities stemming from service failures.