Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Deccan Clap Liable For Deficiency In Service And Unilateral Revision Of Estimates

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), has held M/s Deccan Clap-India Pvt. Ltd. and its agents liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for failing to complete painting and polishing work within the stipulated time and for repeatedly revising project estimates without the consumer's consent. Brief Facts Jatinder Kapoor, the complainant, engaged M/s Deccan Clap-India Pvt. Ltd. (OP No. 1) and its Delhi office at Shadipur, Delhi (OP No. 2) for painting and furniture polishing work at his residence situated at Sector 46, Gurugram. OP Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently engaged a subcontractor, Tapan Kumar Jana (OP No. 3), for carrying out the work. In April 2024, when the complainant initially contacted the OPs for the contractual work, he was given an estimate of Rs. 1,26,814/-. However, he did not proceed with the work at that stage and later sought a fresh quotation in September 2024. After conducting a fresh survey, the OPs issued Estimate No. 2274 for Rs. 1,07,325.60/- and introduced OP No. 3 as the subcontractor for the assignment. The complainant thereafter paid an advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 25-09-2024. Despite assurances that the work would commence immediately, there was a substantial delay in starting the assignment. Thereafter, the OPs unilaterally revised the estimate to ₹1,45,130.40. The complainant, under duress, accepted the revised estimate and made further payments of ₹40,000 and ₹20,000 on 03.12.2024 and 12.12.2024 respectively. According to the complainant, the work began only in the first week of December 2024 and progressed at a very slow pace. The OPs subsequently stopped the work midway and later issued another revised estimate dated 22.01.2025, increasing the project cost to ₹2,28,147. Aggrieved by the repeated revisions and the incomplete work, the complainant approached the District Commission seeking refund and compensation. The OPs failed to file their written replies within the statutory period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, their right to file replies and lead evidence was closed by the Commission. Observations & Decision The Commission observed that the OPs had repeatedly revised the project estimates without obtaining the complainant's consent. It noted that the documentary evidence, including WhatsApp communications placed on record by the complainant, showed substantial delays in commencement of the work, frequent absence of workers from the site, and a slow pace of execution. The Commission further noted that the legal notice issued by the complainant remained unanswered and that the allegations made in the complaint remained uncontroverted due to the OPs' failure to file replies and evidence within the prescribed time. The Commission also criticised the conduct of OP Nos. 1 and 2, observing that their approach appeared arrogant and not customer-friendly. It found that the OPs had failed to complete the project within time, unreasonably revised estimates without consent, abandoned the work midway, and caused mental harassment to the complainant. Holding that a principal-agent relationship existed between OP Nos. 1 and 2 and the subcontractor (OP No. 3), the Commission concluded that all three OPs were guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Accordingly, the Commission held all three OPs jointly and severally liable. Treating OP No. 3 as an agent of OP Nos. 1 and 2, it directed OP Nos. 1 and 2 to refund ₹70,000 to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay ₹50,000 towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The Commission further clarified that after making the payment to the complainant, OP Nos. 1 and 2 would be at liberty to recover the said amount proportionately from OP No. 3 in accordance with law. Case Title: Jatinder Kapoor vs M/s Deccan Clap- India Pvt Ltd & OrsCC No.: DC/80/CC/47/2025 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Deccan Clap Liable For Deficiency In Service And Unilateral Revision Of Estimates

Muhammed Razik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Muhammed Razik

Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Deccan Clap Liable For Deficiency In Service And Unilateral Revision Of Estimates

Muhammed Razik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Muhammed Razik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers