Hostel Directed To Refund Rs.30,000 To Student Over Poor Food, Lack Of Wi-Fi And Maintenance: Kangra Consumer Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, comprising President Mr. Hemanshu Mishra and Members Ms. Arti Sood and Sh. Narayan Thakur, held Nalanda Living Hostel liable for deficiency in service. The Commission observed that accepting upfront commercial charges while failing to provide basic, habitable amenities such as palatable food and internet...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, comprising President Mr. Hemanshu Mishra and Members Ms. Arti Sood and Sh. Narayan Thakur, held Nalanda Living Hostel liable for deficiency in service. The Commission observed that accepting upfront commercial charges while failing to provide basic, habitable amenities such as palatable food and internet connectivity constituted a classic case of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Facts
Aryan Rawat (complainant) took admission in B.Tech course in IILM University, Greater Noida. He booked an air-conditioned room at Nalanda Living Hostel by paying an advance amount of Rs.35,000. The hostel had assured quality food, working Wi-Fi and proper maintenance facilities.
After a week of staying at the hostel, Aryan found that the food was of poor quality, maintenance was not proper and the promised Wi-Fi facility was not provided. He complained to the hostel manager and decided to vacate the hostel. The hostel allegedly assured that it would refund the advance amount after deducting charges for the one-week stay. However, the hostel failed to refund the said amount even after multiple requests. When no refund was made despite repeated requests, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission.
Despite due service of notice, the hostel failed to appear before the Commission and was proceeded ex parte.
Decision
The Commission observed that the receipt produced by the complainant conclusively established that the hostel had received Rs.35,000 as advance booking charges. It held that accepting upfront commercial charges while failing to provide basic, habitable amenities such as palatable food, maintenance and internet connectivity amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. Since the complainant was compelled to vacate the hostel within one week owing to the deficient facilities, the Commission directed the hostel to refund the advance amount after deducting reasonable charges for the one-week stay.
The Kangra Consumer Commission found Rs.5,000 to be a reasonable deduction and directed the hostel to refund the remaining Rs.30,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The Commission also directed the hostel to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,000 towards litigation costs.
Case Title: Aryan Rawat vs Nalanda Living Hostel
Case Number: DC/18/CC/370/2025