SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 16

Jatinder Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Deccan Clap India Pvt Ltd – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No.: DC/80/CC/47/2025



##PAGE1##

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Phone: 011-23969372; 011-23912675 Email: confo-nt-dl@nic.in

Consumer Complaint No.: DC/80/CC/47/2025

In the matter of

Jatinder Kapoor

R/o E-2/29, Gali No. 2

Shashtri Nagar, Delhi-110052

Also at

H. No. 1858, Sector 46

Gurugram- 122003 (Haryana) … Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Deccan Clap- India Pvt Ltd

Through its Authorised Person/ AR

Having its Corporate Office at

Manjeera Trinity Corporate Unit 104

1st Floor, Besides Lulu Mall

KPHB, Hyderabad- 500085 … Opposite Party No. 1

Deccan Clap, 1st Floor

Building No. 2632, Opposite to Metro Pillar No. 215

Near Shadipur Metro Station

Shadipur, Delhi- 110008 … Opposite Party No. 2

Tapan Kumar Jana

S/o M Jana

DC/80/CC/47/2025 Page 1 of 6

##PAGE2##

Sub-contractor

R/o C-52, Second Floor

Indra Enclave, Neb Sarai

South Delhi, IGNOU, Delhi- 110068 … Opposite Party No. 3

ORDER

13.05.2026

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged deficiency

of service on part of M/s Decan Clap- India Pvt Ltd (OP-1 herein), its local

office at Shadipur, Delhi (OP-2 herein) and its sub-contractor namely Sh. Tapan

Kumar Jana (OP-3 herein) by not delivering the services of painting and

polishing work of his home completely. The Complainant is in possession of a

property bearing House No. 1885, Sector 46, Gurugram, Haryana for which he

engaged the services of a painter for painting of the house and polishing of

furniture. For the said purpose, he contacted OP-1 and OP-2 which engaged the

services of OP-3.

2. It is the case of the Complainant that when he contacted the OP-1 and oP-

2 in the month of April 2024, he was given an estimate of Rs. 1,26,814/-. But

the Complainant did not go ahead with the order and he contacted the OP-1 and

OP-2 in the month of September, 2024 for a fresh quotation. In September,

2024, OP-1 and OP-2, after conducting a fresh survey of the property, gave an

estimate vide estimate no. 2274, an estimate of Rs. 1,07,325.60/- for the

painting and polishing services. Subsequently, OP-1 and OP-2 introduced OP-3

as sub-contractor for the assignment and the Complainant made a payment od

Rs. 10,000/- as advance for the services of OPs on 25.09.2024. The painting

assignment was supposed to start immediately, but as the Complainant alleges,

there was substantial delay in starting the painting and polishing work. It is also

the case of the Complainant that the OPs, unilaterally revised the estimate vide

DC/80/CC/47/2025 Page 2 of 6

##PAGE3##

estimate no. 236 dated 01.12.2024 to Rs. 1,45,130.40. The Complainant, under

duress agreed to the said revised estimate and made further payments of Rs.

40,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- 03.12.2024 and 12.12.2024 respectively. It is the case

of the Complainant that the painting work started only in first week of

December, 2024, but the pace of the work was very slow. The OPs stopped the

work midway on 3.12.2024 and demanded another revision of the estimate. The

Complainant refused to revise the estimate, but the OPs sent another revised

estimate of Rs. 2,28,147/- vide estimate No. 366 dated 22.01.2025. At this

stage, the Complainant refused to further variation in the estimate and

demanded the OPs to refund the amount previously paid by the Complainant to

the OPs. The Complainant also sent a legal notice to the OPs followed by which

this complaint was filed.

3. We issued notices to the OPs and the notices were served to all the

parties, As none of the OPs filed their respective replies within limitation period

as prescribed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, we closed

their right to file their replies in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the matter of New India Assurance company Limited Vs. Hilli

Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, [(2020) 5 SCC 757]. Thereafter,

the Complainant filed is evidence, which was followed by filing of written

arguments by Complainant and OP-1&2 and final argu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top