January 13, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi has held M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service for failing to complete renovation work at a Noida residence as per contractual terms. The Commission directed the firm to refund ₹2,00,000 to the complainants along with litigation costs.
The order was passed on January 12, 2026 in Complaint Case No. CC/166/2024, filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Wing Commander Mohit Kumar Garg (Retd.) and his wife, Mrs. Divya Garg.
Contract and Scope of Work
According to the order, the complainants engaged the interior firm in February 2023 for renovation work at their residence. The total contract value was ₹5,10,971.10, which was paid in full through online transfers and card payments.
The scope of work included: Site survey, Fabrication and installation of prefabricated wooden items, Internal painting, Creation of false ceilings in two rooms, Clearance of debris and salvage material and Post-completion maintenance with a 10-year warranty A WhatsApp group titled “Inco–Mr. Mohit Garg” was created for coordination, and substantial communication between the parties took place through that platform.
Allegations of Incomplete and Substandard Work
The complainants alleged that the execution was substandard and incomplete. They claimed there was lack of skilled manpower and supervision, inflated billing, and use of inferior materials. Several concerns were raised repeatedly on the WhatsApp group but allegedly remained unaddressed.
They further alleged that: An underage worker was engaged at the site, which led to embarrassment after society security denied the minor entry, Debris and excavated material were not cleared despite repeated requests, causing inconvenience and environmental issues and Key personnel assigned to the project were unavailable during crucial stages, leading to delays and discontinuity in execution.
After a legal notice seeking remedial action went unanswered, the complainants approached the Commission seeking refund of ₹2,00,000 with interest, compensation for harassment, and litigation expenses.
Firm’s Defence and Commission’s Findings
In its written statement, the Opposite Party denied the allegations and argued that the complaint was false and not maintainable. It contended that the complainants had voluntarily accepted the bill of quantities and that no coercion or deceptive tactics were used.
However, the firm admitted receipt of the legal notice but did not explain why it failed to respond The Commission noted that despite being specifically questioned, the firm offered no satisfactory explanation for its silence after receiving the legal notice calling upon it to complete the work.
It further observed that the firm failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence to establish that the work had been completed in accordance with the agreed terms. Drawing an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Commission held that there was clear deficiency in service.
Relief Granted
Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd. to: Refund ₹2,00,000 to the complainants within four weeks of receipt of the order, Pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realization, in case of default and Pay ₹25,000 towards litigation expenses. With these directions, the complaint was disposed of.
Cause Title: Wing Commander Mohit Kumar Garg (Retd.) & Anr. v. M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/166/2024
Date of Order: 12 January 2026
