Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 24
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Hemanshu Mishra, President, Arti Sood, Member, Narayan Thakur, Member
Aryan Rawat – Appellant
Versus
Nalanda Living Hostel – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No.-DC/18/CC/370/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Paul, Aniket Thakur
For the Respondents:
Failure to provide promised basic habitable amenities, such as quality food and internet connectivity, in a paid hostel accommodation constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, entitling the consumer to a refund of advance fees.
Headnote:The matter pertains to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The complainant sought a refund of advance fees paid for hostel accommodation after experiencing sub-standard food, lack of maintenance, and non-provision of promised Wi-Fi facilities. The court found that the opposite party failed to provide the promised top-tier facilities, leading to the complainant vacating the premises within one week. The primary issue was whether the failure to provide basic, habitable amenities after accepting commercial charges constitutes a deficiency in service. The court reasoned that since the opposite party remained ex-parte and the documentary evidence remained unrebutted, the failure to provide palatable food and internet connectivity constitutes a classic case of deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. Apart from this, opposite party is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, besides litigation cost quantified as Rs.5,000/-.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the complainant alleged deficiency in service due to poor hostel facilities, and the opposite party failed to appear despite notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. evidence provided by the complainant in ex-parte proceedings is considered credible when it remains unrebutted. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. accepting commercial charges without providing basic habitable amenities constitutes a deficiency in service. (Para 7) |
| 4. the court ordered a partial refund of the advance fee with interest, along with compensation and litigation costs. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
PER: Mr. Hemanshu Mishra, President:-
O R D E R
Brief facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint seeking a refund of hostel advance fees, along with interest, compensation for mental harassment, and litigation expenses from the Opposite Party on account of deficiency in service. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant took admission in B.Tech at IILM University, Greater Noida, for the first semester on 17th August 2023. For accommodation purposes, the complainant approached the Opposite Party’s hostel. On the same day, i.e. 17.08.2023, the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.35,000/- (consisting of Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-) towards the hostel accommodation. The Opposite Party issued Receipt No.655 for Room No.M-113 (AC), which was duly signed by their authorized signatory. The Opposite Party had assured various top-tier facilities, including quality food, working Wi-Fi, and regular maintenance services, inducing the complainant to opt for their accommodation. However, within one week of his stay, the complainant faced severe deficiencies. The food provided was sub-standard, maintenance was neglected and the promised Wi-Fi facility/password was never shared. The complainant formally informed the Manager of the Opposite Party on 23.08.2023 about these deficiencies and requested to discontinue his stay. The Manager verbally assured the complainant that the advance amount would be refunded after deducting the charges for a one-week stay. Despite multiple phone calls and reminders, the Opposite Party failed to honor their promise or issue the refund. Alleging deficiency in the service on the part of opposite party(s), the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. Notices were sent to opposite party(s) by this Commission, which were duly served, but none appeared on behalf of opposite party(s) and opposite party(s) were proceeded ex-parte.
3. The complainant was called upon to produce evidence. In order to prove his complaint, complainant has filed affidavit Ext.CW-1 along with documents Annexures C-1 to C-3.
4. On the other hand, opposite party despite of valid service did not bother to contest the complaint and opted to remain ex-parte.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file minutely.
6. Since the Opposite Party chose not to contest the matter despite valid service and remained ex-parte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unrebutted, unchallenged, and uncontroverted. There is no reason to disbelieve the cogent, credible, and convincing documentary evidence placed on record.
7. 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. Since the complainant was compelled to vacate the premises within one week due to the uninhabitable conditions, the Opposite Party is legally and equitably bound to refund the balance amount after deducting reasonable charges for a seven-day stay. In the interest of equity and justice, a deduction of Rs. 5,000/- for the one-week stay is deemed appropriate, le
