The Gurgaon District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered The Allure Grand Resort in Manali to pay Rs 31,000 to a traveler after refusing him and his family accommodation despite a confirmed booking. A panel comprising President Sanjeev Jindal alongside members Jyoti Siwach and Khushwinder Kaur issued the order on July 13, directing the Himachal Pradesh hotel to provide Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental suffering and harassment, in addition to Rs 11,000 to cover legal costs. The resort was granted a 45-day window to comply with the directive, after which an annual interest rate of 12 percent will apply until the payment is fulfilled.
Origins Of The Accommodation Dispute
The conflict originated from an earlier dispute between the parties that was formally settled on March 15, 2021. Under the terms of that compromise, the resort agreed to allow the complainant to book a four-night stay at a 40 percent discount as a final resolution. Relying on this commitment, the Gurgaon resident reserved a room for his family of four—two adults and two children—from October 5 to October 9, 2021. He paid a required advance of Rs 10,000 against a total tariff of Rs 30,400 in line with company policies.
Turning Away Guests After Long Journey
Upon arriving at the establishment on October 5, 2021, following a lengthy trip from Gurgaon, the family was turned away by hotel staff, who refunded the Rs 10,000 advance payment. Although the guest repeatedly asked the staff for assistance in finding alternative lodging for his stranded family, his requests were ignored. Facing severe inconvenience, the traveler dispatched a legal notice to the hotel before filing a formal complaint with the district consumer redressing body alleging deficiency in service.
Rejection Of Defense And Final Findings
In its defense, the resort argued that returning the deposit effectively resolved the dispute and that its staff had no obligation to help the guest secure alternative accommodation once the money was refunded. The commission dismissed this position, holding that a monetary refund does not erase the distress suffered by travelers turned away after a long journey, nor does it excuse a failure to honor a prior legal agreement. The panel concluded that the resort’s breach of service standards caused unnecessary hardship and forced the complainant into avoidable litigation.
