When the complainant and his family reached the hotel for check-in on October 5, 2021, the staff denied them pre-booked accommodation and returned the advance payment. (AI-generated image)A consumer body in Haryana held a Manali resort guilty of deficiency in service for refusing accommodation to a guest and his family despite a confirmed booking made under an earlier consumer court settlement. Holding that just refunding the advance amount paid did not erase the harassment caused to the guest, it directed The Allure Grand Resort to pay Rs 20,000 compensation.A bench of president Sanjeev Jindal and members Jyoti Siwach and Khushwinder Kaur of the Gurgaon District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissio also awarded Rs 11,000 litigation costs to the complainant.“It is also a admitted fact that the complainant travelled a long distance from Gurgaon to Manali and after having been returned the amount of Rs 10,000 by the staff of the resort in question, he was left high and dry, pursuant to which, the request made by him to the resort’s staff to help him in out of the said situation, was also not given any heed to, which in the considered view of this court was bound to cause a considerable mental agony and harassment to the complainant,” the commission said on July 13.The order noted that due to the deficient services rendered by the resort in Himachal Pradesh, the complainant not only had to undergo mental harassment, agony and pain, but was also compelled to be dragged into the present unwarranted and uncalled-for litigation.Booked room, denied stayThe dispute arose after a man and The Allure Grand Resort had settled an earlier consumer complaint on March 15, 2021. Under the settlement, the resort agreed to allow him to book a similar room for four nights at a 40 per cent discount as full and final settlement.Also Read | Stranded in Leh hours before his wedding after flight cancellation, groom wins Rs 43,000 payoutRelying on this assurance, the man booked a stay from October 5 to 9, 2021, paid an advance of Rs 10,000 against the total tariff of Rs 30,400, and travelled from Gurgaon to Manali with his family, including two adults and two children. The advance amount was paid according to the resort’s policy.But when the complainant reached the hotel for check-in on October 5, 2021, the staff denied them accommodation and returned Rs 10,000 to him. Since the complainant had travelled all the way from Gurgaon to Manali, he requested the hotel staff numerous times to help him out, but to no avail. Left stranded, the man issued a legal notice and later approached the district consumer forum, alleging deficiency in service and seeking compensation.Story continues below this adThe resort argued that since it had refunded the advance amount of Rs 10,000, the grievance had already been redressed. It said that after receiving the refund, the complainant should have arranged alternative accommodation on his own. According to the resort, its staff’s refusal to assist the complainant in finding another place to stay did not constitute any deficiency in service.‘Denial amounted to service deficiency’The commission observed that the resort failed to honour the settlement dated March 15, 2021, reached in the earlier consumer complaint. Rejecting the resort’s defence that refunding the advance amount was enough, it held that just returning the amount did not erase the deficiency in service. It concluded that the complainant suffered unnecessary hardship and was compelled to take avoidable litigation due to the resort’s deficient services, making him entitled to compensation and litigation costs.Also Read | ‘Body most truthful witness’: Madras High Court orders fresh autopsy of young wifeIt allowed the complaint and directed the resort to pay the complainant Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental harassment, pain, and agony, along with Rs 11,000 towards litigation expenses within 45 days. On failure to comply, the amount will carry 12 per cent annual interest until realisation.TakeawayThis ruling reinforces that businesses cannot escape liability merely by refunding advance payments after failing to provide promised services. It underscores that honouring settlements and confirmed bookings is a consumer right, and that inconvenience, mental agony, and avoidable litigation caused by deficient service warrant compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.Story continues below this adConsumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana: 1800-180-2087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More