The Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has upheld an order awarding Rs 17.62 lakh to a man who couldn’t use the facilities of a 5-star hotel in the national capital for his daughter’s wedding as he contracted Covid-19 but was denied refund.President Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Member Pinki observed that the ballroom was made available to another party for a wedding event and the man was “ultimately not able to avail the services for which he had paid the amount”“It is also not in dispute that the wedding was scheduled during the Covid-19 period when restrictions were in force. The respondent (man) had requested postponement of the event in view of the prevailing circumstances. Therefore, his request for postponement cannot be treated as an ordinary cancellation of the booking,” the August 31 order read.The man alleged that he had negotiated with the hotel for hosting the wedding of his daughter and that an agreement was finalised on July 23, 2020. The man also claimed that since it was Covid time and the number of persons at the wedding was limited to 50, the hotel had assured him that they would honour the government regulations and gave a schedule to operate in case of the restriction of 50 guests, with a total consideration of Rs 10.56 lakh. The hotel had also promised to postpone the event ‘for any other unforeseen reason’.On July 31, 2020, the contract was signed, and the man gave the hotel a cheque for Rs 5 lakh. Subsequently, on October 1, 2020, the man handed over another cheque for Rs 5.56 lakh to the hotel. The man has also claimed that a few days later, it was falsely alleged by the hotel that the cheque for Rs 5.56 lakh had bounced, because of which an excess amount of Rs 5.56 lakh was credited to the hotel’s account, which had not been refunded despite repeated requests.In the meantime, the government re-enforced the Covid restriction of 50 persons at the weddings, and later the man came to know that the hotel had sold the venues specified for the event to other parties for the same dates and made it impossible for them to host his event. The man alleged that when the hotel staff came to know that he was suffering from Covid in the 3rd week of November, they “took this as an opportunity” to cover up for selling the venues to others by postponing his event.The man contended that even the postponement of the event was refused by the hotel and the man was asked to continue with the event or otherwise to lose the advance. The hotel had further falsely purported that they were prepared to host the event on the original dates. The man also claimed that some of the guests, who were not aware of the postponement, reached the hotel for the event, but the staff told them that no such wedding event was ever scheduled to be held at the hotel, and the banquet venues shown in the invitation were sold out to others.Story continues below this adSince the grievance of the man was not resolved, he filed a consumer complaint with the district commission. On October 6, 2025, the district commission directed the hotel to pay a payout of Rs 17.62 lakh to the man, which included refund, compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. The hotel was also ordered to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the refund amount. Aggrieved by the order of the district commission, the hotel approached the state commission in appeal.‘Government restrictions’The state consumer commission noted that the hotel had “specifically assured the man that if the event was postponed due to government restrictions or any other unforeseen reason, he would be allowed to select another date, subject to availability, and the advance amount already paid would be adjusted in full towards the next event”.The state commission observed that a cancellation clause could not be considered separately from the assurance given by the hotel regarding postponement of the event and adjustment of the advance amount and that “the terms of the agreement have to be read as a whole”.Accordingly, the state commission upheld the order of the district commission and held the hotel liable for deficiency in service and directed it to pay Rs 16.12 lakh, a compensation of Rs lakh for not providing the booked venue and services that caused hardship to the man and Rs 50,00o for litigation expenses. An interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum was also awarded on the refund amount.Story continues below this ad‘Clear cancellation clause’Advocate Purnima Maheshwari, appearing for the hotel, contended that the man himself had requested postponement of the wedding and had also asked the hotel to release the venue. The counsel submitted that the hotel had also agreed to provide alternative dates, but the man did not accept it. The counsel further urged that the agreement signed between the man and the hotel had a clear cancellation clause stating that no refund would be payable in case of cancellation within the prescribed period.The man denied all the allegations made by the hotel and stated that there was no error in the order of the district commission as the evidence was properly evaluated before passing the order.TakeawayThe ruling establishes the obligation of hotels to ensure proper services and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Don’t miss out on these stories:Nearly 6 lakh cases pending in consumer commissions, over 860 posts vacant: CentreStory continues below this adCold storage sells farmer’s 48,000 kg carrots without consent, ordered to pay Rs 31.5 lakhWoman fitted with Rs 2.45 lakh ‘defective dentures’, dentist ordered to pay Rs 3.15 lakh