The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has ordered M/s. Interior Company by Square Yards and its associated entities to pay ₹4.25 lakh in compensation and legal costs for significant deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices. The ruling follows a complaint filed by Manaswini Gorthi, who alleged that her residential flat’s interior project suffered from extensive delays and massive discrepancies between the approved 3D renders and the actual execution of the work.

Presided over by B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, with members C. Lakshmi Prasanna and B. Raji Reddy, the Commission directed the firm to pay ₹3.50 lakh for rectification costs, ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and ₹25,000 for the costs of the complaint. The order highlights the firm's failure to adhere to professional standards and its lack of transparency throughout the project lifecycle.

Discrepancies in Design and Execution The dispute originated when the complainant engaged the firm to design the interiors of her new residential property. Based on promised quality and 3D renderings, she finalized an agreement for a project valued at approximately ₹12.75 lakh. Following the professional assurance of the company, she paid a total of ₹12,45,533 between December 2023 and March 2024. The project was contractually scheduled to be completed by March 3, 2024.

However, the complainant soon discovered that the delivered work did not align with the approved aesthetic and technical designs. Issues ranged from mismatched colors and cabinet fixtures to flawed installations of rolling shutters and kitchen units. Despite bringing these deficiencies to the firm's attention via email and telephone, the project remained unfinished and flawed for months. By June 2024, the company eventually admitted to a "technical glitch" in their design process, blaming their internal production drawings rather than the original renders approved by the complainant.

The complainant eventually filed a formal complaint after the firm failed to rectify the errors even after receiving a legal notice dated January 20, 2025. During the proceedings, the Commission examined evidence including bank records, email threads, WhatsApp communications, and photographic documentation of the incomplete and sub-standard work.

Judicial Findings on Unfair Trade Practices The Commission observed that the firm had failed to provide any evidence of successful completion or satisfaction. Crucially, the bench noted that the company had misled the complainant by withholding information about the potential variance between visual renders and technical production drawings until after the payment was already secured.

The judgment emphasized that "collecting the amounts without sharing true and accurate information regarding the 3D renders before finalizing the project and not informing the complainant that the renders are only for the visual reference and production drawings are considered for the final production and installation amounts to breach of trust , deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 3."

The Commission further noted the absence of any credible rebuttal from the company regarding the photographic evidence provided by the complainant. The court identified that: "the opposite parties have failed to complete the project by the completion date mentioned... and that there are discrepancies in the work agreed and the work executed."

While the firm argued that the project was governed by specific terms and conditions and that the complainant herself caused delays, the Commission found these defenses to be meritless. The bench ruled that the "pre-conditions" cited by the company did not apply to the specific failures identified in this case, particularly as the firm failed to inform the consumer that the renders were purely conceptual.

Impact of the Ruling The case serves as a warning to interior design firms regarding the necessity of transparent disclosure. The Commission’s decision underscores that companies cannot unilaterally decide to depart from approved designs under the guise of "production drawings" without obtaining explicit client consent. By failing to rectify these discrepancies, the firm allowed a routine service request to spiral into a year-long dispute characterized by recurring technical failures and a lack of accountability.

The Commission’s order is not only aimed at compensating the complainant for the financial loss of having to hire external contractors to rectify the defects but also serves as a rebuke for the mental harassment caused by the company’s inability to deliver on its core promises.

The firm and its associated entities, including SY Interior Pvt Ltd., are now legally obligated to comply with the directive within 45 days. Should they fail to do so, the primary compensation amount of ₹3.50 lakh will attract an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint’s filing until the payment is finalized. The finalization of this order provides a definitive resolution to the consumer, effectively closing the litigation regarding the breached service contract and the firm's failure to meet its professional obligations.