Broken Bed And Non-Vegetarian Meal Instead Of Vegetarian, Bengaluru Commission Holds Hotel Harsha, The Fern Liable

Brief Facts of the Case:

N.B. Sudheendra Rao (“Complainant”), residing in Bengaluru, along with his son and an associate, booked rooms at Hotel Harsha, The Fern (“Hotel/Hotel Management”) from February 5 to 8, 2023. The purpose of their visit was to attend a bereavement ceremony for a relative. Upon their arrival at the hotel, they discovered a significant inconvenience - the bed provided in their room was broken. This issue caused the Complainant severe backaches, further exacerbating his existing age-related health problems. To adhere to their cultural and dietary values, the family ordered vegetarian food, which included peanuts, a vegetarian burger, and a sandwich. A distressing incident unfolded during the bereavement rituals when the Complainant’s son unintentionally consumed a chicken burger, believing it to be vegetarian. This mistake inflicted severe trauma, guilt, depression, and digestive issues upon him, necessitating medical treatment.

In their efforts to address the situation, the Complainant approached the hotel management, requesting the waiver of their room charges. The hotel management, while initially reluctant to do so, eventually offered an alternative compensation in the form of another free meal. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”), seeking adequate redress for the distress and inconvenience suffered, he sought the return of Rs. 50,000 from the hotel as compensation.

The Complainant contended that the broken bed provided by the hotel caused him significant distress in the form of severe backaches, impeding his active participation in the essential bereavement rituals. He underscored the family's unwavering adherence to a pure vegetarian dietary regimen and their deeply ingrained cultural values. This emphasis was meant to highlight the emotional distress and anguish they experienced due to the inadvertent serving of non-vegetarian food during their stay. To substantiate his claims, the Complainant submitted crucial evidence, including receipts, an FIR filed with the local police station, and a formal complaint.

The hotel management submitted that it initially resisted waiving the room charges but eventually extended an alternative compensation offer in the form of another free meal. It did not fully accept responsibility for the incident involving the non-vegetarian food and disputed the Complainant's claims. While the hotel responded to the complaint after it was filed, they remained absent during the legal proceedings, challenging the Complainant's assertions and seeking to defend their position.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission affirmed that there was indeed a deficiency of service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the hotel management. The District Commission acknowledged that while the hotel management provided some explanation for their actions, it was not entirely definitive, which was not in consonance with the spirit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which gives paramount importance to rights and interests of the customers. In light of the absence of direct evidence, the District Commission was left to evaluate the credibility of the facts presented by both parties. Consequently, the District Commission decided to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation to Mr. N.B. Sudheendra Rao.

Case: N.B. Sudheendra Rao vs Hotel Harsha

Case No.: CC/63/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Party in person

Advocate for the Respondent: Ex Parte

ClickHere To Read/Download Order