Hyderabad woman pays Rs 12.45 lakh for flat interiors in 2023-24, finds actual work differs from approved 3D designs; 2 years later, consumer commission orders Square Yards entities to pay Rs 4.25 lakh
HYDERABAD: The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I has directed Interior Company by Square Yards and its associated entities to pay Rs 4.25 lakh to a consumer over discrepancies between approved 3D designs and the interior work carried out at her residential flat in Secunderabad, according to a report by Live Law.
According to Live Law, the commission held the companies liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice , observing that they had failed to adequately inform the consumer about the role of production drawings in the execution of the project.
The commission, comprising president B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and B Raji Reddy, partly allowed a complaint filed by Manaswini Gorthi.
Gorthi had engaged the company to carry out interior work at her flat after approving the 3D renders shared by it. 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.
However, she alleged that the actual work differed from the approved designs, citing discrepancies in colours, rolling shutters, cabinet fittings, kitchen units and other installations.
Despite repeated complaints and assurances that the issues would be rectified, the work remained incomplete, she alleged. The company informed her on October 30, 2024, that production was complete, but several discrepancies persisted even after the materials were delivered.
After a legal notice dated January 20, 2025, allegedly failed to resolve the dispute, Gorthi approached the commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
According to the report, the company contested the complaint, maintaining that the work had been executed according to the approved production drawings. It attributed the delays to changes in the consumer's requirements, denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint.
The commission observed that Gorthi had approved the 3D renders and paid the advance on that basis. However, the companies failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to establish that she had been informed, before making the payment or approving the renders, that the designs 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 consumer raised concerns about discrepancies in the work.
It further observed that photographs and other evidence submitted by Gorthi established that the executed work differed from the approved designs and remained incomplete. Collecting payments without adequately informing the consumer about the role of production drawings amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, it held.
The commission directed opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay ₹3.5 lakh towards rectification and finishing work, ₹50,000 as compensation and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.
The companies were directed to comply with the order within 45 days. If they failed to do so, the ₹3.5 lakh awarded towards rectification and finishing work would attract interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until actual payment.
According to Live Law, the commission held the companies liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice , observing that they had failed to adequately inform the consumer about the role of production drawings in the execution of the project.
The commission, comprising president B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and B Raji Reddy, partly allowed a complaint filed by Manaswini Gorthi.
Gorthi had engaged the company to carry out interior work at her flat after approving the 3D renders shared by it. 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.
However, she alleged that the actual work differed from the approved designs, citing discrepancies in colours, rolling shutters, cabinet fittings, kitchen units and other installations.
Despite repeated complaints and assurances that the issues would be rectified, the work remained incomplete, she alleged. The company informed her on October 30, 2024, that production was complete, but several discrepancies persisted even after the materials were delivered.
After a legal notice dated January 20, 2025, allegedly failed to resolve the dispute, Gorthi approached the commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
According to the report, the company contested the complaint, maintaining that the work had been executed according to the approved production drawings. It attributed the delays to changes in the consumer's requirements, denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint.
The commission observed that Gorthi had approved the 3D renders and paid the advance on that basis. However, the companies failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to establish that she had been informed, before making the payment or approving the renders, that the designs 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 consumer raised concerns about discrepancies in the work.
It further observed that photographs and other evidence submitted by Gorthi established that the executed work differed from the approved designs and remained incomplete. Collecting payments without adequately informing the consumer about the role of production drawings amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, it held.
The commission directed opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to jointly and severally pay ₹3.5 lakh towards rectification and finishing work, ₹50,000 as compensation and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.
The companies were directed to comply with the order within 45 days. If they failed to do so, the ₹3.5 lakh awarded towards rectification and finishing work would attract interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until actual payment.
Next Story