Failure To Complete Contractual Renovation Work: Delhi Consumer Commission Directs SY Interiors To Refund ₹2 Lakh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi, comprising Ms. Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr. Bariq Ahmad (Member), and Mr. Shekhar Chan-dra (Member), has held M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete the work as per its contractual obligations. The Commission allowed the complaint, observing that despite receipt of the...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi, comprising Ms. Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr. Bariq Ahmad (Member), and Mr. Shekhar Chan-dra (Member), has held M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete the work as per its contractual obligations. The Commission allowed the complaint, observing that despite receipt of the legal notice, the firm failed to respond and did not produce any evidence to demonstrate that the renovation work had been com-pleted in accordance with the agreed terms.
Brief Facts
The complainants entered into a contract with M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party) in February 2023 for interior renovation works at their residence for a total consideration of Rs. 5,10,971.10, which was paid in full.
The scope of work included site survey, fabrication and installation of prefabricated wood-en items, internal painting of rooms, creation of false ceilings in small sections in two rooms, clearance of debris, and maintenance with 10-year warranty support as per the con-tract. A WhatsApp group titled 'Inco- Mr. Mohit Garg' was created for coordination and communication, and most correspondence took place through the group.
The complainants alleged that the work remained incomplete and was not executed as per the promised standards. They further alleged lack of supervision, use of substandard mate-rial, engagement of an underage worker by a contractor, non-removal of debris, and delays caused due to change of personnel. A legal notice was issued seeking remedial action; however, no response was received.
Aggrieved, the complainants filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 18% per annum, Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for harassment, and Rs. 33,000 towards litigation expenses.
Arguments By The Opposite Party
The Opposite Party contended that the complaint was false, frivolous, and not maintaina-ble. It denied the allegations of deficiency in service and overcharging. It further submitted that the complainants had accepted the Bill of Quantities out of free consent and without coercion. While admitting receipt of the legal notice, the Opposite Party did not provide any explanation for its failure to respond.
Observation & Decision Of The Commission
The Commission observed that despite receipt of the legal notice calling upon it to com-plete the assigned work, the Opposite Party failed to respond. On a specific query during proceedings regarding this inaction, no satisfactory explanation was offered.
The Commission further noted that the Opposite Party failed to adduce any documentary or oral evidence to demonstrate that the work was completed as per the agreed terms. Drawing an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Commission held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to:
• Refund Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainants within four weeks from receipt of the or-der;
• In case of failure, pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the com-plaint till realization;
• Pay Rs. 25,000 towards litigation expenses.
Case Title: Wing Commander Mohit Kumar Garg (Retd.) & Anr. v. M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/166/2024