Hyderabad Consumer Commission Holds Interior Firm Liable, Awards Rs 1.5 Lakh Compensation
Hyderabad: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has held an interior design firm and its proprietor liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a 70-year-old retired government employee alleged that work on his flat was abandoned midway and the finished work did not match the designs shown to him. The commission, while allowing the complaint in part, directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 1.5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 15,000 towards litigation costs.
Dispute over interior work
The order was passed on September 7, 2026, before the District Commission, Rangareddy, on January 9, 2025. Nakka Bagaiah Prakash, represented by his GPA holder and daughter Kum N.P. Jayalakshmi Neha, had engaged Sitara Interiors and Quaint Design Studio, represented by proprietor Lankapothu Mourya Reddy, for interior works at his 2.5 BHK flat at Puppalaguda.
The agreed consideration was Rs 14,95,350, with completion promised within two months. Prakash said he paid Rs 14.65 lakh between May 2 and September 20, 2024, leaving Rs 30,000 unpaid. According to his complaint, the work remained incomplete and was abandoned before his housewarming ceremony. He also alleged that the work executed differed from the 3D visuals, including omission of texture paint and wallpapers.
He further alleged that no site engineer was deputed and that he had to travel 46 km daily to inspect the work. He claimed to have spent Rs 80,643 on semi-finished works and estimated another Rs 4.2 lakh for rectifications. He also alleged that warranty certificates for wooden elements were not supplied. After the alleged non-responsiveness, he lodged a complaint at Narsingi police station on September 14, 2024.
Firm disputes allegations
The opposite parties denied deficiency in service and said the complaint was false and intended to extract money. Mourya Reddy said he had an M.Tech in Geotechnical Engineering from Andhra University and an MS in Construction Engineering and Project Management from Bradley University, US, and had handled 20 projects in the US and 30 in India.
The opposite parties contended that the 3D visuals were only for reference and that the approved quotation determined the scope of work. They said some of the works complained of were outside the quotation and attributed delays to last-minute changes and demands by the complainant. They also said the key and warranty certificate were withheld because Rs 30,000 remained due along with Rs 22,500 for additional works.
Commission finds deficiency
The commission noted that the engagement was based on both the 3D visuals and quotation and found that the opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that the complainant was informed before payment that the visuals were merely reference samples. It also relied on an unchallenged email, Ex.A7 dated November 4, 2024, as supporting the allegation that the project had been abandoned.
The commission said the opposite parties produced no material to substantiate their claim that the delay was caused by the complainant. Though they filed a written version, they subsequently failed to adduce evidence or contest the proceedings.
However, the commission rejected the complainant’s Rs 4.2 lakh claim for completion of unfinished work for want of documentary proof and found the Rs 10 lakh compensation sought disproportionate.
Holding the opposite parties jointly and severally liable, the commission ordered payment of Rs 1.5 lakh compensation and Rs 15,000 litigation costs within 45 days of receipt of the order. In case of default, the Rs 1.5 lakh compensation will carry interest at 9% per annum from January 9, 2025, the date of filing the complaint, until payment.
