Hyderabad consumer commission orders Square Yards to pay ₹4.25 lakh over 3D design mismatch – here’s what happened

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I in Hyderabad has directed Square Yards’ interior business and its associated entities to pay ₹4.25 lakh to a woman in Secunderabad after finding discrepancies between the 3D designs she approved and the interior work completed in her flat.

According to a LiveLaw report, the commission found the firms guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, noting that they failed to clearly explain to the customer the role of production drawings in the execution of the project.

The complaint filed by Manaswini Gorthi was partly allowed by the commission, headed by President B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and comprising members C. Lakshmi Prasanna and B. Raji Reddy.

Here’s what we know about the case

The complainant engaged the company to carry out interior work at her flat in Secunderabad after approving 3D designs shared by it, following which she received a quotation of roughly ₹12.75 lakh. On December 30, 2023, she paid ₹6.10 lakh to the company, followed by another payment of ₹6.35 lakh on March 8, 2024. The project was scheduled for completion by March 3, 2024.

Gorthi alleged that the finished interiors did not match the approved designs, citing differences in colours, rolling shutters, cabinet fittings, kitchen units and other fixtures.

The woman repeatedly raised concerns over the faulty work and was assured that the issues would be rectified. However, she said the work remained incomplete. On October 30, 2024, she was informed that production had been completed, even though several discrepancies persisted after the materials were delivered.

What did the woman do?

According to the report, after a legal notice issued on January 20, 2025, allegedly failed to end the dispute, the woman approached the commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Following her complaint, the company contested it, arguing that the work was executed in accordance with the approved drawings and attributing the delays to changes in her requirements. It further denied any deficiency in service and sought the dismissal of the complaint.

What did the commission order?

The commission noted that the complainant had approved the 3D renders and paid the advance amount based on them. It also found that the companies did not produce relevant documents proving that she had been informed before making the payment that the renders were only indicative and that the work would ultimately follow separate production drawings.

It said this clarification was given only after Gorthi questioned the differences in the completed work. The commission also relied on photographs and other material submitted by her, finding that the interiors were incomplete and did not correspond with the approved designs. It held that taking payment without clearly explaining the role of production drawings amounted to deficient service and an unfair trade practice.

The three opposite parties were held jointly and severally liable to pay ₹3.5 lakh for rectification and finishing work, ₹50,000 as compensation, and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.

The companies have been given 45 days to comply. If the ₹3.5 lakh rectification amount is not paid within that period, it will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date the complaint was filed until payment is made.