The Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has affirmed a decision that awarded Rs 17.62 lakh to a man who was unable to utilize the facilities of a five-star hotel in the capital for his daughter’s wedding due to contracting Covid-19, and was subsequently denied a refund.
Commission President Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Member Pinki noted that the hotel’s ballroom had been booked by another party for a wedding event, which meant the man was “ultimately unable to avail himself of the services for which he had paid.”
The commission’s ruling, issued on August 31, stated, “It is acknowledged that the wedding was planned during the period of Covid-19 restrictions. The respondent (the man) had sought to postpone the event due to the ongoing situation. Thus, his request for postponement should not be regarded as a regular cancellation of the booking.”
The individual contended that he had negotiated with the hotel to host his daughter’s wedding, finalizing an agreement on July 23, 2020. He further claimed that, given the Covid-related restrictions limiting attendance to 50 guests, the hotel assured him it would comply with government regulations and provided a schedule to operate under these constraints, with a total fee of Rs 10.56 lakh. The hotel had also promised to allow for postponement in case of any unforeseen circumstances.
On July 31, 2020, the contract was signed, and the man issued a cheque for Rs 5 lakh to the hotel. Additionally, on October 1, 2020, he provided another cheque for Rs 5.56 lakh. He alleged that shortly thereafter, the hotel falsely claimed that the latter cheque had bounced, resulting in the hotel receiving an excess payment of Rs 5.56 lakh, which they failed to refund despite multiple requests.
As the government reinstated the restriction of 50 guests for weddings, the man discovered that the hotel had sold the venue to other parties for the same dates, making it impossible for him to hold his event. He argued that upon the hotel staff learning of his Covid diagnosis in the third week of November, they “saw this as an opportunity” to cover up their actions by postponing his event.
The man claimed that the hotel denied his request for postponement and insisted that he either proceed with the event as planned or forfeit his deposit. The hotel also misleadingly stated that they were ready to host the event on the original dates. Furthermore, some guests unaware of the postponement arrived at the hotel for the event but were informed by staff that no wedding had been scheduled there, as the banquet areas listed in the invitation had been allocated to others.
With his grievance unresolved, the man submitted a complaint to the district consumer commission. On October 6, 2025, the district commission ruled in his favor, ordering the hotel to pay him Rs 17.62 lakh, which included a refund, compensation for emotional distress, and legal expenses. The hotel was also instructed to pay interest at a rate of 12 percent per annum on the refund amount. Following this decision, the hotel appealed to the state commission.
The state commission highlighted that the hotel had explicitly assured the man that if the event was postponed due to government mandates or unforeseen issues, he could select an alternative date, contingent on availability, and that his advance payment would be fully credited toward the rescheduled event.
The commission noted that a cancellation clause in the contract could not be viewed in isolation from the assurances provided by the hotel regarding the postponement and adjustment of the advance payment, stating that “the terms of the agreement must be interpreted as a whole.”
As a result, the state commission upheld the district commission’s ruling, holding the hotel accountable for inadequate service. The hotel was ordered to pay Rs 16.12 lakh, which included compensation of Rs 1 lakh for not delivering the booked venue and services, along with Rs 50,000 for legal costs. An interest rate of 9 percent per annum was also awarded on the refund amount.
Advocate Purnima Maheshwari, representing the hotel, argued that the postponement had been requested by the man himself, who also asked the hotel to release the venue. The counsel asserted that the hotel had offered alternative dates, which the man did not accept. Additionally, the counsel pointed out a clear cancellation clause in the signed agreement, stating that no refunds would be issued for cancellations within the specified timeframe.
The man refuted the hotel’s claims, asserting that the district commission’s order was justified, as the evidence had been properly reviewed before reaching a decision.
This ruling underscores the responsibility of hotels to provide adequate services and highlights the importance of addressing consumer concerns to avoid unnecessary inconvenience. Individuals facing consumer-related issues are encouraged to reach out to their local consumer helpline or contact the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for support.
