Hostel to pay Rs 40,000 to student who left over poor food: Owner never returned the advance; student vacated within a week over no Wi-Fi and poor maintenance

A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has directed a Greater Noida hostel to refund Rs 30,000 with 9% annual interest after a student left the accommodation within a week, alleging that the promised facilities, including quality food, Wi-Fi and maintenance, were not provided.

The commission also ordered the hostel to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and another Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs, holding that accepting advance fees while failing to provide basic amenities amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

The order was passed on June 25, 2026, in a complaint filed by Aryan Rawat against Nalanda Living Hostel in Greater Noida.

Why did the student approach the consumer court?

According to the complaint, Aryan Rawat secured admission to the B.Tech programme at IILM University, Greater Noida, for the first semester on August 17, 2023.

Looking for accommodation near the university, he opted to stay at Nalanda Living Hostel on the same day.

To secure a room, he paid Rs 35,000 in advance, comprising Rs 30,000 towards hostel charges and Rs 5,000 separately. The hostel allotted him AC Room No. M-113 and issued Receipt No. 655, duly signed by its authorised representative.

According to the complaint, the hostel had assured students of several facilities before accepting the booking, including quality food, functioning Wi-Fi and regular maintenance services.

However, Aryan alleged that the reality turned out to be very different.

What problems did the student face?

The complaint states that within just one week of moving into the hostel, Aryan began experiencing multiple problems.

He alleged that the food served at the hostel was sub-standard, maintenance of the premises was neglected and, despite repeated requests, the Wi-Fi password was never provided, effectively denying him internet access.

According to the complaint, these shortcomings made the accommodation unsuitable for a student pursuing higher education.

On August 23, 2023, barely a week after checking in, Aryan informed the hostel manager about the deficiencies and expressed his intention to discontinue his stay.

Hostel allegedly promised refund but never paid

According to Aryan, the hostel manager verbally assured him that the advance amount would be refunded after deducting charges for the one week he had stayed there.

Relying on this assurance, Aryan vacated the hostel.

However, despite making several phone calls and repeated follow-ups, the refund never came.

Alleging that the hostel had failed to honour its own commitment, Aryan approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, seeking refund of the advance amount along with interest, compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs.

Hostel chose not to contest the case

The commission issued notices to Nalanda Living Hostel.

Although the notices were duly served, the hostel neither appeared before the commission nor filed any reply.

As a result, it was proceeded against ex parte.

Aryan, meanwhile, supported his complaint by filing his affidavit along with documentary evidence, including the hostel receipt and other supporting documents.

Since the hostel chose not to participate in the proceedings, the evidence produced by Aryan remained unrebutted.

What did the consumer court say?

The commission observed that when one party chooses not to contest a case despite being served notice, the documentary evidence filed by the complainant remains unchallenged.

It found no reason to disbelieve the material placed on record.

The commission noted that the hostel receipt conclusively established that Nalanda Living Hostel had collected Rs 35,000 as advance payment from the student.

It further observed that the hostel had accepted commercial consideration after assuring students of facilities such as quality food, internet connectivity and proper maintenance.

However, according to the commission, failing to provide these basic amenities after collecting advance fees amounted to a clear deficiency in service.

The order states: "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."

Why was only Rs 30,000 refunded?

Although Aryan had paid Rs 35,000 to the hostel, the commission noted that he had occupied the room for approximately one week before vacating it.

Since he had admittedly stayed in the hostel during that period, the commission held that the hostel was entitled to deduct reasonable charges for those seven days.

Considering the facts of the case, it found a deduction of Rs 5,000 to be fair.

Accordingly, it directed the hostel to refund the remaining Rs 30,000.

The commission observed that since the complainant was compelled to leave the hostel because of the allegedly uninhabitable conditions, refunding the balance amount after deducting one week's charges was both legally and equitably justified.

What did the consumer court order?

Allowing the complaint, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Nalanda Living Hostel to:

• Refund Rs 30,000 to Aryan Rawat.
• Pay interest at 9% per annum on the refund amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint until its realisation.
• Pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental harassment.
• Pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.

The commission held that the complaint deserved to be allowed in full, observing that accepting advance fees while failing to provide basic promised facilities constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

Check the case judgement here: