Udaipur Leela Palace fined Rs 10 lakh: Staff entered occupied room with master key
A Chennai consumer court has ordered The Leela Palace, Udaipur, to pay over Rs 10.65 lakh in compensation and refund. The luxury hotel was found guilty of deficiency in service after a housekeeping staff member unlawfully entered an occupied room using a master key, causing severe mental trauma to a pregnant guest.
![]()
CHENNAI: A Chennai consumer court has ordered luxury hotel The Leela Palace, Udaipur, to pay more than Rs 10.65 lakh in compensation and refund after holding it guilty of deficiency in service over a serious breach of guest privacy involving a pregnant woman.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), in its December 16 order, found that a housekeeping staff member unlawfully entered an occupied room using a master key while the complainant and her husband were inside the washroom, causing severe mental trauma and humiliation.
Chennai Headlines Today — The Biggest Updates You Need to Know.
The complainant, a Chennai-based advocate, had booked a premium “Grand Room with Lake View” at the Leela Palace, Udaipur, for Rs 55,500 on a non-refundable basis for a one-day stay in January 2025 to celebrate her husband’s birthday and their baby-moon.
The commission noted that despite the room being occupied, a housekeeping associate entered the room within seconds of ringing the bell, relying on internal standard operating procedures.Rejecting the hotel’s defence, the commission held that internal SOPs cannot override a guest’s fundamental right to privacy, particularly in a five-star hotel charging premium tariffs. It observed that entry using a master key within less than a minute was unreasonable and unsafe, especially when the washroom was in use.
The commission relied on contemporaneous evidence, including WhatsApp communications with hotel officials, apology letters issued by the housekeeping staff and hotel management on the same day, and photographs showing a broken washroom door and a non-functional CCTV camera outside the room. It said these documents supported the complainant’s version and disproved the hotel’s claim that there was no immediate protest.The court also criticised the hotel’s conduct after the incident, citing delays in sharing CCTV footage, misleading assurances, and harassment at checkout, when the complainant and her husband were made to wait for hours and their luggage was withheld. The complainant’s pregnancy, the commission said, aggravated the trauma and imposed a higher duty of care on the hotel.Holding the hotel liable, the commission ordered refund of the full room tariff of Rs 55,500 with 9% interest from January 26, 2025, Rs 10 lakh as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, to be paid within two months.