Ahmedabad's Hyatt Hotel Ordered to Pay Consumer ₹4,040 After Charging Illegal Service Charge on Coffee
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
The Ahmedabad Rural District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Hotel Hyatt in Vastrapur to refund improperly levied service charges and GST to a customer, slapping the star hotel with a total payout of ₹4,040 including compensation for mental harassment and legal expenses.
The bench issued the unilateral order after hotel authorities failed to appear before the commission despite receiving formal notices regarding the consumer complaint.
Unfair Trade Practice Exposed Over a Coffee Bill
Rohit Jayantilal Patel, a resident of Saptak Bungalows on Science City Road, visited Hotel Hyatt on the afternoon of 11 September 2025 and ordered two coffees. The bill handed to him totalled ₹854, which included ₹690 for the two coffees (at ₹345 each), ₹62 in GST, and an additional service charge of ₹34.50.
Patel filed a complaint with the district consumer forum, seeking a refund for the unlawfully collected service charge and excess GST. He also requested the commission to order the hotel to deposit ₹1 lakh into the Consumer Welfare Fund to penalize systematic unfair trade practices.
Commission Orders Refund and Harassment Compensation
Evaluating the evidence alongside relevant rulings from the Delhi High Court, the commission found that Hotel Hyatt engaged in unfair trade practices by levying the mandatory service charge.
The commission directed the hotel to refund ₹34.50 collected as service charges and ₹6 for the corresponding GST, along with 9 per cent interest. Additionally, the bench ruled that Patel is entitled to ₹2,000 as compensation for mental harassment caused by the unfair trade practice, along with ₹2,000 towards litigation costs, payable within 30 days.
Regarding Patel's plea to direct a ₹1 lakh penalty payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 39(1)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the commission declined to issue such an order. The bench noted that while penalties can be imposed if a large number of consumers are impacted, the complainant failed to provide definitive or reliable evidence proving how many total customers were subjected to the charge or the total amount collected by the hotel.
