BENGALURU: Rules made by a private firm have no legal consequency if they are contrary to law, the Bangalore Urban I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said, while holding an interior design firm guilty of deficiency in service it has to render a customer,
The court ordered Bonito Designs, an interior designing firm, to refund Chandrashekar, a Kumbalgodu resident, nearly Rs 2.2 lakh which it had taken from him for interior work but failed to commence work and also refused to pay back the money citing company policies.
After seeing an advertisement from the company in 2023, Chandrashekar approached the firm to undertake interior woodwork for his newly purchased flat.
The firm was to come up with a complete kitchen unit, two wardrobes, a puja unit, a foyer unit, and a study table. Following negotiations, the total cost of the project was agreed at Rs 7.3 lakh, with the firm committing to complete the work within 90 days of signing the agreement on Sept 10, 2023. Earlier on Sept 2, Chandrashekar had paid the firm Rs 27,000 as an advance.
Chandrashekar alleged that on Sept 10, the firm insisted on an additional payment of Rs 58,000, which he paid. The firm also informed him that the total cost included GST.
After a few design discussions, on Oct 20, Chandrashekar paid a further amount of Rs 1,34,348 online. He submitted his GST certificate, requesting it be included in the bill, but the firm refused to accept the certificate and did not respond to his request. On Nov 18, 2023, Chandrashekar again shared his GST details and certificate via WhatsApp with the firm but received no resolution.
In all, Chandrashekar paid the firm Rs 2,19,348 in instalments across multiple dates. Despite his repeated attempts, including emails requesting a correction in the billing details or a refund of the excess amount, the firm remained unresponsive. On Feb 1, 2024, the firm replied, stating that the amount paid was non-refundable and forfeited under company policy.
A frustrated Chandrashekar visited the firm’s office in HSR Layout, Sector 7, where he was initially assured of a refund. However, no refund materialised. Exhausted by these repeated refusals, Chandrashekar sent a legal notice on March 26, 2024.
In response, the firm provided what the complainant described as false and untenable reasons. He approached the consumer court on July 23, 2024. Despite being served notice, the firm failed to appear before the commission and was placed ex-parte.
“Self-made rules for a firm have no legal significance if proven contrary to the law,” the commission said, emphasising that corporate policies must undergo judicial scrutiny for fairness and legality. Withholding the advance amount without rendering service amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, it held.
The commission ordered Bonito Designs to refund the entire amount of Rs 2,19,348 to Chandrashekar, along with 8% interest from the dates on which the advance was paid, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
