Interior designer takes Rs 4.9 lakh full payment, leaves work incomplete: Consumer court orders refund after family is forced to stay on rent for months

NoBroker has been directed to refund Rs 4,90,716 to a Hyderabad customer after a consumer commission found it collected the entire payment for home interior work, failed to complete the project within the agreed period, and left the family unable to move into their newly constructed house for several additional months.

The order was passed on 3 July 2026 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad-III.

NoBroker Home Interiors Contract


The complainant, B. Lokeshwari Vijay Reddy, entered into a contract with NoBroker for interior work at his newly constructed home in Hyderabad. The entire contractual consideration of Rs 4,90,716 was paid to NoBroker in instalments, as established through tax invoices and payment transaction records placed before the commission.

NoBroker made repeated assurances of timely completion. Despite receiving the full payment, it failed to execute the work within the agreed period.

NoBroker Incomplete Work and Delays

The complainant submitted that despite repeated reminders and escalation requests through emails and digital communications, NoBroker neither completed the pending work nor responded to his grievances. He was also compelled to procure certain materials on his own because NoBroker failed to fulfil its obligations under the contract.

The commission noted from the documentary evidence that even at the time of handover, several agreed items remained incomplete and the quality of work executed was below the promised standards. The complainant also told the commission that he was compelled to sign the handover letter although substantial work remained pending at that point.

NoBroker did not appear before the commission and was proceeded against ex-parte, leaving the complainant's oral and documentary evidence entirely unchallenged.

Family Forced to Stay on Rent

The complainant specifically told the commission that because of the abnormal delay in completion of interior works, he and his family could not shift to their newly constructed house and were compelled to continue living in rented accommodation for several additional months, incurring avoidable financial expenditure in the process.

The emails and digital communications marked as exhibits before the commission showed a pattern of repeated assurances from NoBroker without corresponding action.

Consumer Court on Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice

The commission held that NoBroker's conduct amounted to both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

On deficiency in service, it applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh, which held that unexplained delay in performing contractual obligations constitutes deficiency in service and entitles the consumer to suitable compensation.

On unfair trade practice, the commission found that collecting the entire contractual consideration while making repeated assurances of timely completion, and then failing to deliver, squarely fell within the definition of unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It described NoBroker's conduct as reflecting complete disregard towards consumer rights.

On compensation, the commission relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lucknow Development Authority versus M.K. Gupta, which recognised that compensation under the Consumer Protection Act extends not only to actual financial loss but also to harassment, mental agony, inconvenience, and suffering caused by deficient services.

The complainant had also cited a Maharashtra State Commission ruling in Dr. Deepak Parikh versus M/s Home Makers Interior Designers, where a full refund of Rs 12.5 lakh with 7 per cent interest was ordered in similar circumstances, and urged the commission to consider it.

The commission, however, rejected the complainant's claim for Rs 20 lakh in punitive damages, holding that punitive damages are awarded only in exceptional cases involving deliberate fraud, oppressive conduct affecting a large body of consumers, or repeated and wilful violation of statutory obligations, and that the evidence on record did not meet that threshold.

Consumer Court Order

The commission directed NoBroker to refund Rs 4,90,716 to the complainant in full, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

NoBroker must comply within 45 days of receiving the order.

Check the case judgement here: