Consumer Commission Slaps Rs 10,000 Penalty on Kasauli Hotel for Unfair Trade Practice
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has taken strong action against a hotel in Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh, imposing a penalty of Rs 10,000 on the owner for engaging in unfair trade practices. This decisive ruling came after the establishment refused to refund or adjust the booking amount paid by a Ludhiana resident for his daughter's first birthday celebration, which had to be cancelled due to severe weather conditions in the state.
Commission Orders Refund with Interest Threat
In addition to the penalty, the commission has directed the resort management to refund Rs 30,000 to complainant Abhi Garg, who resides on Pakhowal Road in Ludhiana. The refund must be processed within 30 days of receiving a copy of the official order. The commission made it clear that failure to comply with this directive would result in the amount carrying an annual interest rate of 8%, calculated from the date the original complaint was filed until the actual payment is made.
Birthday Plans Disrupted by Himachal Weather Crisis
According to detailed complaint documents, the first birthday of Abhi Garg's daughter was scheduled for July 16, 2023. To celebrate this special occasion with family and relatives, he had meticulously planned a gathering and booked nine rooms at the Kasauli hotel for 18 persons for one night from July 16 to July 17, 2023. The total price for this booking arrangement was Rs 1,12,100, out of which he made an advance payment of Rs 30,000 on May 15, 2023.
However, just days before the planned celebration, heavy rains and devastating cloudbursts struck various regions of Himachal Pradesh. These extreme weather events triggered landslides, floods, and caused widespread damage to roads and critical infrastructure across the hill state. The situation was extensively covered in news bulletins, and the meteorological department issued yellow alerts, strongly advising the public against traveling to Himachal Pradesh due to unsafe conditions.
Cancellation and Initial Assurance from Hotel
Faced with these severe weather warnings and safety concerns, the complainant made the difficult decision to cancel the birthday programme. On July 12, 2023, he formally informed the hotel about the cancellation. According to his account, a hotel employee acknowledged the situation and advised him not to visit Himachal Pradesh during that dangerous period. The employee reportedly assured him that the Rs 30,000 paid as advance would be adjusted against future bookings at the hotel.
Hotel's Refusal and Demands for Costlier Package
When weather conditions eventually normalized, the complainant contacted the hotel again and requested a booking of three rooms for one night, as the original birthday celebration window had passed. He specifically asked that the earlier payment of Rs 30,000 be adjusted against this smaller, modified booking.
The hotel management refused this reasonable request, instead insisting that he either book six rooms for one night or three rooms for two nights. Both these alternative options would cost more than the amount already paid, thereby requiring him to pay additional money out of pocket. The complainant alleged that he was effectively compelled to accept a costlier package against his wishes.
Legal Battle and Compensation Claims
When his repeated requests for adjustment or refund were denied, the complainant escalated the matter legally. He issued a formal legal notice to the hotel on September 30, 2023, but this too failed to secure any refund or resolution. In his complaint to the consumer commission, Abhi Garg claimed to have suffered significant mental tension and harassment due to the hotel's conduct.
He sought not only the refund of his Rs 30,000 advance payment but also Rs 1 lakh in compensation for the distress caused and Rs 22,000 to cover litigation expenses incurred during the process.
Ex Parte Proceedings Due to Hotel's Non-Appearance
The opposite party—the hotel management—failed to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission despite proper service of notice. As a result, the commission proceeded against them ex parte, meaning the case was heard and decided in their absence based on the complainant's evidence and arguments.
This case highlights the importance of consumer protection mechanisms and serves as a reminder to businesses about their obligations under fair trade practices, especially when customers face genuine circumstances beyond their control.
