Khan Sir case: Autopsy indicates no foul play in death of accused in Nepal hotel
5 min readNew DelhiJun 23, 2026 03:50 PM IST A Rajasthan hotel was ordered to pay Rs 12,020 after charging a consumer Rs 20 above the MRP for two mineral water bottles.(AI generated Image)A consumer who was charged Rs 20 extra on two mineral water bottles at a hotel in Chittorgarh has secured Rs 12,020 payout from the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which held that unlawful overcharging, even of a small amount, cannot be ignored merely because the monetary loss suffered by the consumer is minimal. Judicial member Mukesh and member Raminivas Saraswat from Circuit Bench at Udaipur, was hearing an appeal filed by consumer Ashish Kumar Kothari against Hotel The Grand Chittor (The Alfresco) after he challenged a June 26, 2024 order of the District Consumer Commission, Chittorgarh.“It is not necessary that a consumer cannot suffer mental agony merely because the excess amount charged is Rs 20. When an additional amount is illegally collected from a consumer, the mental distress naturally caused by such conduct cannot be ignored,” the commission said on June 19, 2026. Background Ashish Kumar Kothari visited Hotel The Grand Chittor, Chittorgarh, on January 31, 2022, and ordered food along with two bottles of mineral water. The hotel generated a bill of Rs 2,199 for the meal, which included charges for the two water bottles purchased by the consumer. Upon examining the bill, Kothari noticed that each bottle carried an MRP of Rs 20 but had been billed at Rs 30. Kothari claimed that he immediately objected to the excess charge and requested that the amount be refunded to him. According to the complaint, the hotel staff refused to return the excess amount despite being informed that the charge exceeded the printed MRP. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Kothari subsequently approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chittorgarh. District commission’s decision On June 26, 2024, the district commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the hotel to refund the excess amount of Rs 20. The commission also awarded litigation costs of Rs 1,100 but declined to grant any compensation for mental agony. Unsatisfied with the limited relief, Kothari challenged the order before the Rajasthan State Consumer Commission. He argued that the district commission failed to adequately compensate him for the inconvenience and harassment caused by the hotel’s conduct.Story continues below this ad Hotel’s defence The hotel denied any deficiency in service and contended that customers visited the establishment not only for food but also for its ambience and facilities. It submitted that the property offered several amenities and that guests paid for the overall experience available at the hotel. The hotel further maintained that branded mineral water had been supplied and sought dismissal of the complaint. Appeal proceedings Before the state commission, Kothari argued that the hotel had charged one-and-a-half times the MRP for the water bottles sold to him.Story continues below this ad He also submitted that pursuing consumer litigation involves expenditure of time, effort and resources beyond mere filing expenses. According to him, the district commission erred in not awarding compensation for the mental harassment resulting from the unlawful charge. The hotel, on the other hand, argued that an excess charge of Rs 20 could not reasonably be treated as causing mental agony. It further contended that the complainant had not suffered any substantial loss warranting enhancement of compensation.Story continues below this ad Findings of the state commission The state commission noted that the hotel had not challenged the finding of deficiency in service recorded by the district commission. As a result, the finding that the consumer had been wrongly overcharged had attained finality. Rejecting the hotel’s argument on mental agony, the commission held that the amount involved was not the dete
