Booked as Clean and Safe, Found Unhygienic and Unsafe: Consumer Commission Orders Homestay to Pay ₹66,500
Can a homestay operator rely on a non-refundable booking policy when the accommodation fails to meet the standards advertised online? A consumer commission in Visakhapatnam has awarded ₹66,500 to a guest after finding deficiencies in hygiene, maintenance and safety, along with misleading advertising.
Published by: PRAN Foundation | Consumer Justice Initiative
The decision highlights an important principle of consumer protection: businesses must deliver the services they promise, and their advertising should accurately reflect what consumers can expect.
What happened in the Visakhapatnam homestay case?
A man booked a homestay in Visakhapatnam for three nights, from 26 to 29 September 2025, after seeing online representations describing the accommodation as clean, attractive, well-maintained and safe.
According to the complaint, the property did not match those representations. The guest alleged that the premises had broken electrical fittings, exposed wiring, non-functional plumbing, unclean linen and inadequate sanitation.
The condition of the toilet was a particular concern. The guest subsequently vacated the property the following day and sought a refund.
The homestay operator disputed the allegations. According to the media reports, the owner described the accommodation as a budget-friendly private container cottage and maintained that the facilities had been disclosed on the booking platforms.
The owner also contended that the guest had booked for one person but arrived with two additional guests, inspected the premises and paid the balance amount. The operator relied on the non-refundable booking policy.
After considering the evidence, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Visakhapatnam, reportedly found the premises untidy, unhygienic, unsafe and poorly maintained. Its findings included exposed electrical wiring and fittings, a poorly maintained toilet and a non-functional toilet flush.
The commission held the operator liable for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and misleading advertisement.
Source: The Indian Express — Homestay as clean, with unclean toilet: Man wins ₹66,500 payout.
How much compensation was awarded?
According to the published reports, the commission directed the homestay operator to pay a total of ₹66,500.
| Component | Amount |
|---|---|
| Refund of booking amount | ₹16,500 |
| Compensation | ₹30,000 |
| Amount for misleading advertisement | ₹10,000 |
| Litigation costs | ₹10,000 |
| Total | ₹66,500 |
The award comprised a refund, compensation, an amount relating to misleading advertising and litigation costs.
The amounts reflect the reported order in this particular dispute. They should not be treated as a standard compensation scale for every complaint involving poor accommodation.
Why was the homestay operator held liable?
The case was reported as involving three important provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Deficiency in service — Section 2(11)
Section 2(11) defines deficiency to include a fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature or manner of performance required by law, contract or otherwise in relation to a service.
Accommodation providers do not have to offer luxury facilities simply because a consumer books a room online. However, the accommodation supplied must meet applicable legal requirements and the standards reasonably represented or agreed upon.
Cleanliness, functional sanitation and reasonable electrical safety are not merely premium amenities. Serious shortcomings in these areas may amount to deficiency in service, depending on the facts and evidence.
In the Visakhapatnam case, the reported findings concerning exposed wiring, poor sanitation and a non-working toilet flush supported the commission's conclusion.
2. Unfair trade practice — Section 2(47)
Section 2(47) addresses unfair or deceptive trade practices, including specified false representations concerning the standard, quality or grade of services.
Online listings play a significant role in consumer decisions. Photographs, descriptions and claims about cleanliness, safety and maintenance may influence whether a person chooses a property and pays for a booking.
Where material representations do not match the accommodation actually supplied, the issue may extend beyond ordinary dissatisfaction and raise questions of unfair trade practice.
A modest homestay can legitimately advertise itself as budget accommodation. The concern arises when its actual condition materially contradicts the representations made to attract customers.
3. Misleading advertisement — Section 2(28)
Section 2(28) defines a misleading advertisement to include an advertisement that falsely describes a service, gives a false guarantee, is likely to mislead consumers about the nature, substance, quantity or quality of a service, or otherwise falls within the statutory definition.
The commission reportedly held the operator liable for misleading advertising as well.
The wider lesson is straightforward: advertising should provide consumers with an accurate picture of the service being offered. A business should not create an impression of cleanliness, safety or quality that the actual accommodation fails to meet.
For the statutory text, consult the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, on India Code.
Can a homestay refuse a refund because the booking is non-refundable?
A non-refundable booking condition does not automatically settle every dispute between a guest and an accommodation provider.
Cancellation policies generally deal with the financial consequences of cancelling a booking under the agreed terms. A complaint alleging that the service itself was deficient raises a separate question: whether the provider delivered the accommodation promised and met the applicable legal standards.
The Visakhapatnam commission reportedly ordered a refund and additional relief despite the operator's reliance on the cancellation policy.
This does not mean that every guest who dislikes a room is entitled to a refund. Personal preferences, a change of plans and a failure to provide the promised service are different situations.
The actual condition of the property, the representations made before booking, the contractual terms, the evidence and the applicable law all matter.
The important point is that a non-refundable clause should not be assumed to defeat a genuine claim involving material deficiencies, misleading representations or safety concerns.
What should consumers do when accommodation does not match the online listing?
Consumers who encounter serious hygiene, maintenance or safety problems should preserve evidence and communicate their concerns promptly.
1. Save the original listing. Take screenshots of the property description, photographs, advertised amenities, cleanliness claims, safety representations and cancellation policy. Retain the booking confirmation and payment receipt.
2. Document the actual condition. Take clear photographs or videos of the relevant problems, such as an unclean toilet, broken plumbing, damaged fittings or exposed wiring. Preserve the original files and note when they were recorded.
3. Notify the operator in writing. Explain the deficiencies through email, the booking platform or another written channel. Request appropriate corrective action, alternative accommodation or a refund, depending on the circumstances.
4. Preserve the response. Keep copies of messages, complaints, refusals and communications with the booking platform. If you leave the property, retain evidence of the checkout time and any additional accommodation expenses.
5. Make a specific claim. Explain how the actual service differed from what was advertised. State the refund sought and identify any additional losses for which compensation is claimed, supported by available evidence.
6. Escalate the complaint if necessary. Consumers can contact the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance. If the dispute remains unresolved, they may consider approaching the appropriate consumer commission, subject to applicable jurisdictional and procedural requirements.
For a practical introduction to the process, see PRAN Foundation's guide: How to File a Consumer Complaint in India.
Where there is an immediate safety hazard, such as exposed electrical wiring, avoid the affected area and inform the operator promptly. Personal safety should take priority over collecting evidence.
What does this case mean for homestay owners and booking platforms?
The decision is a reminder that accurate advertising and proper maintenance are important parts of responsible hospitality.
Homestay owners should ensure that their online photographs and descriptions reasonably reflect the property offered to guests. Regular checks of electrical fittings, plumbing, toilets, linen and other essential facilities can help identify problems before they affect customers.
When a complaint is received, operators should investigate it fairly, document the response and take appropriate corrective action.
Booking platforms and intermediaries should also take complaints about materially inaccurate listings seriously and handle them in accordance with their applicable obligations and policies. However, the reported decision concerns the homestay operator; it should not be read as a finding of liability against an unnamed booking platform.
The larger consumer-rights lesson
Online photographs and descriptions influence a consumer's decision to book. But the actual service delivered determines whether the consumer receives what was promised.
The Visakhapatnam case illustrates how a dispute over accommodation can raise issues of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and misleading advertising under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
For consumers, the practical lesson is to preserve evidence, raise concerns promptly and make a reasoned complaint. For service providers, it is to ensure that the property delivered matches its representations and that essential facilities are properly maintained.
Consumer rights are meaningful when promises made before payment can be tested against the service actually delivered.
Related Consumer Rights Resources
PRAN Foundation works to improve consumer awareness and access to remedies through research, education and public-interest advocacy. The following resources may help readers take the next step:
PRAN Consumer Justice Initiative — Learn about PRAN's consumer-rights work and available complaint-assistance options.
How to File a Consumer Complaint in India — Understand the basic process for pursuing a consumer grievance.
PRAN Research and Publications — Explore consumer-law research and related educational resources.
Banking Problems in India? How to Complain and Get Justice — Read about grievance redressal in another area of consumer protection.
For information about the PRAN Consumer Justice Initiative, visit the initiative page to review its scope and available assistance options.
Legal disclaimer
This article is intended for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It is based on media reports of the Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision. The complete certified order, case number and any subsequent appellate proceedings have not been independently verified for this article. The outcome of any consumer complaint depends on its facts, evidence and applicable law. This article does not constitute legal advice.
About PRAN Foundation: PRAN Policy Research Action Network Foundation is a Section 8 non-profit organisation working to advance consumer protection, access to justice, governance and accountability through research, education, advocacy and capacity building.
