Signature Aura Luxury PG for Women in Hyderabad asked to Rs. 40,000 for failing to provide amenities

HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad ordered Signature Aura Luxury PG For Women, (Hostel) in Kothaguda to pay Rs. 40,000 in compensation for inflicting mental anguish to a Hyderabad resident by failing to provide amenities as advertised and promised in the brochure.

Vineela Potturi (42), an online tutor who relocated to Signature Aura Luxury PG For Women (Hostel) on April 11, 2022, claimed that the hostel's facilities were not up to the standards advertised in the brochure.

Vineela claimed that the room was not clean and lacked basic necessities such as toiletries and clean towels. Furthermore, the restroom was not adequately kept, and the hot water supply was inconsistent.

Vineela Potturi was informed by the hostel authorities that if she was dissatisfied with the services provided, she was free to vacate the hostel. Vineela, despite paying rent, faced disrespect and rude behaviour from the hostel administration, leading to financial loss and mental agony, forcing her to file a consumer case.

The hostel authorities, despite receiving a notice on May 26, 2023, failed to appear in the consumer court. The hostel authorities right to file a written version was forfeited on July 11, 2023, due to non-appearance and non-filing within the stipulated period.

The court noted that Vineela paid the required amount as consideration to the hostel authorities upon joining. The Signature Aura Luxury PG For Women in Kothaguda promised to offer breakfast, lunch, dinner, WIFI, power backup, TV, security, parking, cleaning, CCTV, geyser, washing machine, locker, RO water, indoor games, microwave, fridge, self-cooking.

However, Vineela complained about not receiving the advertised cleaning services and that the hostel authorities failed to maintain regular cleaning, only cleaning on alternate days in her complaint.

Vineela expressed dissatisfaction with the building's backup unit, poor quality food, unhygienic dining and kitchen conditions, and rude staff behavior. Vineela was dissatisfied with the hostel's facilities and customer service, despite its positive reputation, and expected better amenities from a hostel.

She also alleged the backup unit in the building never works and food provided by them was of poor quality and lacked variety. Vineela was disappointed by the unhygienic condition of the dining area and kitchen, and the staff behaviour was not courteous.

Vineela's stay at the hostel was disappointing, and she was not satisfied with the facilities and customer service provided. Vineela expected better from a hostel with such a good reputation.

She further claimed that the hostel administration failed to provide a security guard. She also claimed that she never saw any one security guard in the hostel premises during her one year stay.

Vineela also recalled an incident in which a boy followed a girl into her room, and the hostel administrators responded irresponsibly and erratically blaming the girl for the incident.

Vineela moved into the hostel on April 11, 2022, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 6,250 for 20 days and Rs. 10,000 for a security deposit. The hostel authorities increased monthly rent from Rs.9,000 to Rs.12,000 from May to August 2022, Rs.10,000 from September to February 2023, and Rs.12,000 from March 2023.

Vineela in her complaint claimed that the hostel authorities increased monthly rent without ensuring a safe environment on the hostel's property. She also shared photographs of the dirty kitchen to the hostel administration on WhatsApp.

The kitchen was not cleaned as per the cleaning schedule, as she shared her experiences. Despite multiple inquiries about kitchen cleanliness, the hostel administrator consistently dismissed the issue, stating that she was not exceptional. He sometimes offered her the option to vacate the hostel, despite her complaints, and she was repeatedly asked to do so.

Hence, the court ruled that the hostel administration failed to deliver the promised amenities despite taking monthly charges. The court deemed the complainant's demand for amenities and vacated the Signature Aura Luxury PG For Women hostel as a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

The court ruled in favor of Vineela Potturi and ordered the hostel authorities to provide and maintain the hostel premises as per his offer through the hostel's brochure. The court ordered Signature Aura Luxury PG For Women hostel to compensate Rs.40,000 for mental agony and financial suffering, along with Rs.5,000 for litigation costs.