NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Himachal Pradesh, on June 25, has directed a private hostel in Greater Noida to refund Rs 30,000 to an engineering student, along with interest, compensation and litigation costs, after finding that the hostel failed to provide the basic facilities it had promised him.What was the issueThe complainant, Aryan Rawat, took admission to the first semester of a B. Tech programme at IILM University, Greater Noida, in August 2023. For accommodation, he approached Nalanda Living Hostel and paid an advance of Rs 35,000 on August 17, 2023, for an AC room. The hostel had assured him of good food, working Wi-Fi and regular maintenance.Within a week, the complainant found that the food was substandard, maintenance neglected, and the Wi-Fi password never shared despite him making several requests. He informed the hostel manager about these problems on August 23, 2023, and asked to discontinue his stay. The manager verbally agreed to refund the advance after deducting charges for the week he had stayed, but despite repeated calls and reminders, the hostel never paid up.The complainant then approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, alleging deficiency in service. However, the hostel did not respond to the commission’s notice or contest the case, and was proceeded against ex-parte.What did the commission sayThe bench comprising president Hemanshu Mishra and members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur observed that Rawat’s evidence — including the payment receipt — stood “unrebutted, unchallenged, and uncontroverted,” as the hostel chose not to contest the complaint.The commission said the receipt conclusively establishes that the hostel collected a substantial advance from the complainant, and held that accepting payment upfront while failing to provide basic amenities.“The receipt (Annexure C-1) conclusively establishes that the Opposite Party collected a substantial advance of Rs. 35,000/-. Accepting upfront commercial charges while failing to provide basic, habitable amenities like palatable food and internet connectivity constitutes a classic case of Deficiency in Service under the Consumer Protection Act,” the commission held.Since the complainant was compelled to leave within a week due to the poor conditions, the commission held that the hostel was bound to refund the balance after deducting reasonable charges for the seven days he stayed. It found a deduction of Rs 5,000 for that week to be fair, leaving a refundable amount of Rs 30,000.“In the interest of equity and justice, a deduction of Rs. 5,000/- for the one-week stay is deemed appropriate, leaving a refundable principal balance of Rs. 30,000/-. Accordingly, the complaint deserves to be allowed,” the commission said.The commission ordered the hostel to refund Rs 30,000 to Rawat with 9 per cent annual interest from the date of the complaint until payment, along with Rs 5,000 as compensation for the ordeal and a further Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
