Terming the refund conditions for cancelled events as “very harsh and one-sided”, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh dismissed an appeal filed by Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited (CITCO), which runs the five-star Hotel Mountview, and upheld an order directing the hotel to refund Rs 18,750 to a city resident along with compensation and litigation costs of Rs 6,000.
CITCO had challenged the March 5, 2025 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh, which directed the hotel to refund Rs 18,750 with 9 per cent annual interest. The District Commission had also ordered the hotel to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs.
The complaint was filed by Chandigarh resident Aman Arora, who stated that in July 2022, he booked a marriage-related function at Hotel Mountview for July 5, 2022, by depositing Rs 25,000.
According to the complainant, the hotel staff had assured him that 80 per cent of the booking amount would be refunded in case of cancellation. Due to a mishap in the fiancée’s family, the scheduled function was cancelled.
On June 25, 2022, the hotel staff suggested that the function be rescheduled and the complainant agreed to shift it to November 29, 2022.
Within a few days of the rebooking, all marriage celebrations and functions were cancelled, following which the complainant sought a refund. However, after nearly two months, the hotel refused to refund the amount.
The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, following which CITCO filed an appeal before the State Commission.
The main ground taken in the appeal was that under the hotel’s refund policy, no amount was refundable if cancellation was intimated less than 15 days before the function or if the function was cancelled after being postponed or rescheduled.
Rejecting the contention, the State Commission observed that one of the documents relied upon by the hotel stated that in case of a second postponement of a banquet function, 25 per cent of the advance amount would be deducted, while in case of a third postponement, the entire advance would stand forfeited.
The Commission observed that these conditions were “very harsh and one-sided”, particularly as there was nothing on record to show that the complainant had been informed about the conditions contained in the office order dated April 8, 2021.
The Commission further held that after cancellation of the second booking, the hotel could at most have deducted 25 per cent of the deposited amount and refunded the remaining Rs 18,750.
“The act of the OPs in forfeiting 100 per cent of the deposited amount certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,” the Commission said while dismissing the appeal.
