A consumer commission in Hyderabad has ordered Interior Company by Square Yards and its affiliated entities to pay Rs 4.25 lakh to a customer over significant discrepancies in flat interior designs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-1 found the firm failed to adequately explain the difference between initial 3D design approvals and the final production drawings used for execution. The ruling, delivered recently, mandates the payment within 45 days.
Manaswini Gorthi, a Hyderabad resident, engaged Interior Company by Square Yards for her Secunderabad flat's interior work. She initially approved 3D designs presented by the company, subsequently making payments totalling approximately Rs 12.75 lakh. This included an initial Rs 6.10 lakh on December 30, 2023, followed by Rs 6,35,533 on March 8, 2024. The project's original deadline was March 3, 2024.
Following the installation of the interiors, Ms. Gorthi observed numerous deviations from the approved designs. Despite the company declaring production complete on October 30, 2024, she identified variations in colours, cabinet fittings, kitchen units, rolling shutters, and other components. When a legal notice issued on January 20, 2025, failed to resolve her concerns, she escalated the matter, filing a case under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, before the consumer commission.
Interior Company by Square Yards contested the allegations, asserting the work aligned with approved production drawings. They attributed project delays to customer-requested changes made during the process.
However, after reviewing both sides, the commission, led by President B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and B Raji Reddy, concluded that Ms. Gorthi had indeed accepted the initial 3D designs before her substantial payments. Crucially, the firm could not provide sufficient documentation proving it had clearly communicated the limitations of these 3D designs. The commission noted a lack of convincing evidence that the customer was informed the 3D images were purely illustrative and that actual work would proceed based on separate production drawings. This distinction, the commission highlighted, only surfaced after Ms. Gorthi raised her complaints about the discrepancies.
Based on these findings, the commission directed the interior firm and its associates to remit the Rs 4.25 lakh compensation within the stipulated 45-day period, ensuring redress for the consumer.
Image: siasat.com
📰 Source: Siasat Gulf