Noida: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) directed a Noida-based architect firm to refund Rs 12.6 lakh with interest to a flat owner for interior work that was allegedly not completed to his satisfaction. The flat owner alleged that the firm used substandard furnishings while executing the interiors.On Sept 1, commission president Anil Kumar Pundir and member Anju Sharma disposed of the matter ex parte in the absence of a representation or any counterclaim by the firm.“The opposite party, having accepted the consideration and then not completing the work, committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complaint is liable to be allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs 12,59,134 to the complainant with 6% simple interest from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment along with Rs 2,000 as expenses incurred by the plaintiff for litigation costs,” it ruled.Aditya Kumar filed a complaint on behalf of DJENACOMPANY on Nov 1, 2025, accusing Noida firm Grid Interiors of deficiency in service. Jena alleged that his firm engaged the respondent for interior work of his flat in a Greater Noida West society on Dec 23, 2024, accompanied by a quotation/PDF presentation detailing project scope and costs.“I have paid a total of Rs 12,59,134 across multiple instalments between Nov 13, 2024, and April 27, 2025, but the work remains incomplete. Whatever work was done, it is of very low quality, involving low-grade or reused materials that have cracked or bent,” he told the commission.He further alleged that specific items under their agreement were still pending, including the safety lock, stone in TV cabinet, mechanical magic corner, L corner, loft, bathroom niche and glass partitions, work table, silicone in gaps and balcony decoration.“The opposite party changed many designs from the 2D presentation without prior notice or approval. Despite repeated requests and a meeting on March 26, 2025, wherein the respondent committed to hand over the flat by April 9, 2025, and acknowledged a delay penalty of Rs 1,000 per day, the work was not completed,” Jena said.The company also failed to deposit GST on time despite assurances, he added. A legal notice was served on the architect firm on Sept 18, 2025, but it remained unanswered.The commission admitted the complaint and issued a notice to the company, but did not receive a written response, and no counsel was sent to represent the firm during the proceedings. The commission decided to go ahead with the proceedings ex parte on March 6 this year.“The opposite party accepted consideration and failed to perform; it constitutes an actionable deficiency. The opposite party repeatedly made false commitments regarding the completion of work but did not honour them. The opposite party did not appear and did not file any pleading or evidence. The affidavit of the complainant is uncontroverted and hence the complaint is allowed,” it held.
