Home decor firm ordered to pay Rs 33,000 for ditching housewarming work

Holding that retaining a consumer’s hard-earned money after backing out of agreed work amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, a Himachal Pradesh Consumer Commission ordered a home decoration firm to refund Rs 33,000, along with 9 per cent annual interest on the Rs 25,000 advance it had retained after abandoning a steel railing installation project before a homeowner‘s housewarming.

The Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president, Hemanshu Mishra, and members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur were hearing a complaint filed by Pankaj Kumar Sharma against ‘Guru Prem Sukh Home Decor’ over an alleged deficiency in service arising from an incomplete steel railing installation project.

“The retention of the complainant’s hard-earned money without executing the corresponding contractual obligation constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,” the commission said on July 2, allowing the complaint.

The dispute stemmed from a home renovation project that went awry ahead of a family’s home inauguration ceremony. After paying an advance and expecting the work to be completed within the promised time, the homeowner was allegedly told to find another contractor, but the advance money was never returned despite repeated follow-ups.

Work never completed

According to the complaint, Sharma approached the home decor firm in April 2025 for fabrication and installation of steel railings and grills at his newly built house. After discussions over the design, technical specifications and pricing, both sides agreed that the work would be completed within 15 days.

The complainant paid Rs 25,000 as advance. However, the work did not begin within the agreed period. As the date of the house inauguration approached, Sharma repeatedly contacted the firm requesting completion of the installation.

Forced to hire another contractor

The commission noted that instead of completing the work, the firm allegedly informed the complainant that it would not execute the project and advised him to engage another service provider. Although the firm assured Sharma that the advance amount would be refunded shortly, the money never came back.

Story continues below this ad

Faced with an imminent housewarming ceremony, Sharma arranged another contractor to install the railings, resulting in additional expenditure. He continued making personal visits, phone calls, and even contacted the firm through WhatsApp seeking the refund, but received no relief.

Firm chose not to contest case

Notices issued by the consumer commission were duly served on the opposite party, but no representative appeared before the commission. The firm was consequently proceeded against ex parte.

The complainant filed his affidavit and supporting documents.

Since the opposite party chose not to contest the proceedings, the commission held that the complainant’s evidence remained unchallenged and there was no reason to disbelieve the material placed on record.

Commission’s findings

The commission held that the consumer-service provider relationship stood established once the firm accepted the advance payment.

It found that the contractor neither completed the work at his newly built house within the promised 15 days nor refunded the advance after backing out of the agreement.

The commission further observed that retaining the complainant’s money without fulfilling the contractual obligation amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

It also held that the firm’s conduct caused physical inconvenience, mental agony and unnecessary stress to the complainant, particularly because the delay disrupted preparations for the house inauguration ceremony.

Relief granted

Allowing the complaint, the commission directed the decor firm to refund the advance amount of Rs 25,000 along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.

Story continues below this ad

It also ordered the firm to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 3,000 towards litigation expenses. The commission directed that copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act.

Significance

This ruling reinforces that businesses cannot retain a consumer’s advance payment after backing out of a contractual commitment. It also recognises that failing to deliver services linked to time-sensitive event, such as a housewarming ceremony can cause genuine mental agony and financial loss.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Himachal Pradesh: 1800-180-8087) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.