Hyderabad Commission Penalizes Square Yards Over Interior Design Discrepancies
Consumer court mandates compensation after interior firm failed to align final work with 3D renders.
1Commission Rules Against Square Yards
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I in Hyderabad ruled against Square Yards regarding interior service deficiencies. The firm must pay 4.25 lakh rupees to a customer, Manaswini Gorthi, after finding that completed interior work in her Secunderabad flat significantly deviated from the approved 3D designs provided during the initial project phase.
2Financial Scope of the Dispute
The complainant initially received a project quotation of approximately 12.75 lakh rupees. She made two payments totaling 12.45 lakh rupees between December 2023 and March 2024. Despite these substantial payments, the project failed to meet the agreed-upon completion deadline of March 3, 2024, leading to the subsequent legal action and formal complaint.
3Nature of Design Mismatches
Gorthi alleged that the finished interiors lacked consistency with the approved 3D renders. Specific discrepancies cited included variations in cabinet fittings, kitchen units, rolling shutters, and overall color schemes. The commission reviewed photographic evidence confirming that the delivered materials and final installations did not correspond with the visual designs the customer originally approved.
4Failure in Transparency Standards
The commission determined the company failed to clarify that 3D renders were merely indicative. Crucially, the firm did not inform the client that separate production drawings would dictate the final execution. This lack of transparency regarding project documentation was classified as an unfair trade practice and a clear deficiency in professional service delivery.
5Company Defense and Counterarguments
Square Yards contested the allegations, asserting that all work strictly adhered to the final production drawings. The company attributed project delays to the client's own requirement changes during the construction phase. They denied any service deficiency and formally requested the dismissal of the complaint, arguing that their execution met the necessary contractual standards.
6Breakdown of the Compensation Order
The commission held the three opposite parties jointly and severally liable for the total amount. The 4.25 lakh rupee penalty includes 3.5 lakh rupees for necessary rectification and finishing work, 50,000 rupees as compensation for the customer, and 25,000 rupees to cover the legal costs incurred during the litigation process.
7Compliance and Interest Penalties
The companies have been granted a 45-day window to comply with the commission's order. If the 3.5 lakh rupee rectification amount remains unpaid after this period, the sum will accrue interest at a rate of 9 percent per annum, calculated from the original date the consumer complaint was filed until full payment.
8Implications for Interior Industry
This ruling highlights the legal necessity for interior firms to bridge the gap between marketing renders and technical production drawings. By holding the company liable for failing to manage client expectations, the commission reinforces the importance of clear contractual communication, ensuring that visual representations do not mislead consumers during the project procurement process.