The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a hotel to refund ₹3 lakh to a customer who cancelled bookings for his daughter’s wedding about a month before the scheduled functions, while allowing the hotel to retain ₹2.31 lakh from the advance towards its loss.
A bench comprising Presiding Member Dr Inder Jit Singh and Member Shashi Nandkeolyar upheld the concurrent findings of the Ghaziabad District Consumer Commission and the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission, observing that the hotel had failed to produce evidence supporting its claim that it suffered a loss of ₹17.70 lakh because of the cancellation.
The NCDRC, however, modified the earlier orders by setting aside the ₹5,000 awarded towards mental harassment and litigation expenses. It directed the hotel to refund ₹3 lakh with interest at 6 per cent per annum from June 30, 2023, until payment. Both parties were directed to bear their own litigation costs.
Wedding Bookings Cancelled A Month Before Functions
The dispute arose after Praveen Garg booked two halls at the hotel for his daughter’s wedding ceremonies scheduled for June 29 and June 30, 2018.
The total package for the two functions was fixed at ₹17.70 lakh, with separate agreements or memoranda of understanding executed for the bookings.
Garg paid ₹81,000 for the June 29 function and ₹4.50 lakh for the June 30 function, taking the total advance payment to ₹5.31 lakh.
The agreements provided that 30 per cent of the amount would be non-refundable and that the venues would remain blocked until the scheduled functions.
On May 25, 2018, Garg cancelled both bookings citing unavoidable circumstances and sought a refund. The hotel declined, relying on the non-refundable condition contained in the agreements.
District Commission Orders ₹3 Lakh Refund
On June 30, 2023, the Ghaziabad District Consumer Commission allowed Garg’s complaint and directed the hotel to refund ₹3 lakh out of the ₹5.31 lakh paid by him.
The District Commission permitted the hotel to retain ₹2.31 lakh towards the loss considered to have been suffered due to the cancellation. It also awarded ₹5,000 towards mental harassment and litigation costs.
The forum noted that the facilities and services planned for the wedding functions had ultimately not been utilised.
The hotel challenged the order before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission, which dismissed its appeal on September 10, 2024.
The State Commission noted that the booking had been cancelled on May 25, 2018, ahead of the scheduled ceremonies and that the hotel had not produced evidence establishing its alleged loss of ₹17.70 lakh.
NCDRC Finds No Ground To Interfere
The hotel subsequently approached the NCDRC through a revision petition, challenging the direction to refund the amount despite the contractual non-refundable clause.
The national commission noted that its revisional jurisdiction was limited and found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the consumer forums below.
The commission took into account that Garg had agreed to the cancellation conditions but also noted that the terms were standard, the cancellation had been made about a month before the scheduled functions, and no material had been placed on record by the hotel to substantiate its claimed loss.
The NCDRC observed that the cancellation was made for a valid reason and that the State Commission had specifically recorded the absence of evidence supporting the hotel’s claim of a ₹17.70 lakh loss.
It therefore upheld the direction requiring the hotel to return ₹3 lakh while allowing it to retain ₹2.31 lakh from the ₹5.31 lakh advance.
The commission only interfered with the additional ₹5,000 compensation awarded towards mental agony and litigation expenses, which it deleted while maintaining the principal refund with 6 per cent annual interest.
