Hyderabad Consumer Commission Holds Interior Company Liable For Mismatch Between Promised Designs And Executed Work

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, comprising President B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and Members C. Lakshmi Prasanna and B. Raji Reddy, has held Interior Company by Square Yards and its associated entities liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice over discrepancies between approved 3D renders and the actual interior work executed at a consumer's residential flat.

Facts:

The complainant, Mrs. Manaswini Gorthi, engaged M/s Interior Company by Square Yards and its associated entities to undertake interior work at her residential flat in Secunderabad, Telangana. After approving the 3D renders shared by the company, she received a quotation of approximately ₹12.75 lakh and paid ₹6.10 lakh on December 30, 2023, followed by ₹6,35,533 on March 8, 2024. The project was scheduled for completion by March 3, 2024.

The complainant alleged that the actual interior work differed from the approved 3D renders, with discrepancies in designs, colours, rolling shutters, cabinet fittings, kitchen units and other installations. Despite repeated complaints and assurances of rectification, the company allegedly failed to complete the work as agreed. Although the company informed her that production was complete on October 30, 2024, several discrepancies remained even after the materials were delivered.

After the company allegedly failed to resolve the issues despite a legal notice dated January 20, 2025, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

The company contested the complaint, arguing that the actual work was executed according to the approved production drawings and that delays resulted from the complainant's changing requirements. It denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint.

Observation and decision:

The Commission observed that the complainant had approved the 3D renders and paid the advance on that basis. However, the opposite parties failed to produce cogent documentary evidence to establish that she had been informed, before making the payment or at the time of approving the renders, that the renders were merely illustrative and that the actual execution would be based on production drawings. The Commission noted that this information was provided only after the complainant raised concerns regarding discrepancies in the work.

The Commission further observed that the photographs and other evidence produced by the complainant established discrepancies and incomplete work. It held that collecting payment without adequately informing the complainant about the role of the production drawings amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Partly allowing the complaint, the Commission held Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable and directed them to pay ₹3,50,000 towards rectification and finishing work, ₹50,000 as compensation and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs. The Commission directed compliance within 45 days. In case of non-compliance, the ₹3,50,000 amount would attract interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until actual payment.