The Leela Palace Udaipur has been directed by a consumer court to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation to a Chennai-based couple after it held that the hotel’s housekeeping staff violated their privacy. According to a report by Bar and Bench, a staff member entered the couple’s room using a master key while they were inside the washroom.
Housekeeping staff entered room using master key
The ruling followed a complaint filed by a Chennai-based advocate who had booked a “Grand Room with Lake View” at the hotel for a one-day stay on January 26, 2025. She alleged that despite the room being occupied, a housekeeping staff member used a master key to enter while she and her husband were in the washroom, Bar and Bench reported.
According to a report by The Hindu, the complainant said that even after the couple shouted “no service”, the staff member entered the room and allegedly peeped through a broken washroom door. She stated that the incident amounted to a serious invasion of privacy and caused her mental distress.
Consumer court raps Leela Palace
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) held that the incident constituted both a violation of privacy and a deficiency in service. The Commission observed that housekeeping staff cannot enter an occupied room using a master key merely on the basis of internal standard operating procedures (SOPs).
In addition to the Rs 10 lakh compensation, the Commission directed the hotel to refund the room tariff of Rs 55,000, along with 9 per cent annual interest from January 26, 2025, until the amount is realised. The hotel was also ordered to pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission ordered that the total amount be paid within two months of the order, which came on December 16. The complaint had been filed against Schloss Udaipur Private Limited, which operates The Leela Palace, Udaipur.
Hotel denies wrongdoing
The Leela Palace denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the housekeeping staff entered the room only after ringing the doorbell, claiming the action was in line with the hotel’s standard operating procedures. The hotel further stated that there was no “Do Not Disturb” sign displayed and that neither the door latch nor the double lock had been engaged.
The hotel also claimed that the staff member exited the room immediately after realising that the guests were inside the washroom. It also gave the couple letters of apology, stating that they were issued solely as a goodwill gesture. The hotel chain added that the letters do not amount to an admission of fault.
What did the commission say?
The Commission rejected the hotel’s defence, holding that internal SOPs cannot override a guest’s fundamental right to privacy and safety.
“…Entry was effected by using the master key, within less than one minute of ringing the bell, which… is unreasonable and unsafe in a situation where the room was occupied, and the washroom was in use,” said the Commission.
The commission added that if the staff used a master key within less than a minute of ringing the bell, calling the action unreasonable and unsafe, especially when the room was occupied and the washroom was in use.
It further observed that if the staff could not hear a response from inside the room, they should have contacted the reception desk to verify whether the guests were present or had checked out, rather than entering the room using a master key.
“The failure to produce the SOP clearly establishes negligence in handling and maintaining basic etiquette by the staff… Had the SOPs been strictly followed, the incident in question could have been avoided,” the Commission observed.
It also held that the written apology letters issued by the hotel on the same day carried evidentiary value and could not be dismissed as routine hospitality gestures.
“Though… (the Hotel) calls them ‘goodwill gestures’, the Commission cannot ignore that such written apologies, issued on the very date of the incident, acknowledge failure and lapse in handling the situation. In consumer jurisprudence, such admissions, even if styled as apologies, carry evidentiary value and cannot be brushed aside as routine hospitality practice,” it said.
The Commission further flagged concerns over delays in providing CCTV footage and noted that the camera outside the room was non-functional, raising questions about guest safety.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench report)