Interior Company told to pay Rs 4.2 lakh for defective, incomplete work in Hyderabad flat
HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has directed Interior Company by Square Yards and SY Interior Pvt Ltd to pay Rs 4.25 lakh to a customer over incomplete and defective interior work in her flat. The commission also held the opposite parties jointly and severally liable and ordered them to comply with the directions within 45 days.
The order was passed on September 3, 2026, in C.C. No.106/2025 filed by 28-year-old businesswoman Manaswini Gorthi. The complaint was filed on May 2, 2025. The bench comprised president B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and B Raji Reddy.
Gorthi had engaged the opposite parties for interior design work after purchasing a flat in a newly constructed residential society. The total quotation was Rs 12,75,632.65, of which she paid Rs 6.10 lakh on December 30, 2023, and the balance Rs 6,35,533 on March 8, 2024.
Customer alleged designs did not match approved renders
According to Gorthi, despite receiving the advance, the e-sign contract was shared only later and digitally signed on February 8, 2024, with completion promised by March 3, 2024. The company’s website terms, she said, stipulated delivery within 80 days, by March 20, 2024.
She alleged that after execution began, several designs, colours and materials did not match the approved 3D renders. The discrepancies included rolling shutters, frosted glass, cabinet colour codes, soft closures, wheels, kitchen open-box and tall units, pencil drawers, crockery units and TV units.
Emails from the company referred to a “technical glitch” between the 3D renders and production drawings and stated that the designer handling the project had left the company, according to the complaint. Gorthi said she was initially asked to bear replacement costs, followed by assurances of replacement, but deliveries continued to be delayed. Even the material delivered on November 6, 2024, allegedly contained discrepancies.
She also alleged that debris was left at the flat, affecting painting work, while she continued to incur electricity charges of Rs 3,000 a month because of the incomplete work. A legal notice issued on January 20, 2025, seeking completion within seven days received no response.
Commission finds deficiency in service
Opposite parties 2 and 3 denied liability and contended that the complaint was misconceived. They maintained that 3D renders were conceptual, while execution was governed by signed production drawings. They attributed delays to changes in requirements, interventions and delayed approvals by the complainant. They also said tools and material remained at the site because work was pending due to design changes.
The commission, however, noted a contradiction in this stand. While the opposite parties relied on the approved 3D renders, they also argued that execution was strictly governed by production drawings. The commission found that they had not shown that the complainant was informed beforehand that production drawings would differ from, or take precedence over, the approved renders.
Photographs, WhatsApp chats and pen-drive evidence produced by the complainant, marked Ex.A14, A15 and A16, established the incomplete work and remained unrebutted, the commission said. It also accepted the complainant’s rectification estimate in the absence of contrary evidence.
The commission held the conduct of Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3 to constitute breach of trust, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It directed them to jointly and severally pay Rs 3.5 lakh towards rectification and completion, Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service, and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs.
If the Rs 3.5 lakh rectification amount is not paid within 45 days, it will carry interest at 9% per annum from May 2, 2025, the date of filing of the complaint, until payment.
