Raju Kumar Paswan
New member
- Dealer Name
- Dasari Sai Krishna Reddy
- Company Name
- Prime Space Interiors
- Customer Care Number
- 9391397325
- Loss Amount
- 220000
- Ratings
- Opposite Party Address
- Flat no 301, Padmavathi Nilayam, Chandanagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad 500050, Telangana
Permanent Address:
H/no. 20/887-1, RK Nagar, Kadapa District, Taluk: Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh - 516001
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT RANGAREDDY
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
AT RANGAREDDY
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES
- The Complainants are a family comprising Mr. Raju Kumar Paswan, an Ex-serviceman (Retd.) of the Indian Army, Mrs. Devanta Devi, and Miss Pinki Kumari, residing at Sai Mansion Apartments, Venkateshwara Nagar, Sainathpuram, Hyderabad. Having invested their hard-earned savings in acquiring and furnishing their residential house, the Complainants engaged the services of the Opposite Party for execution of the interior works of their residence upon his representations regarding his experience, workmanship and timely completion of the project.
- The interior work entrusted to the Opposite Party was intended for the Complainants' family residence, which they expected to occupy upon completion of the agreed works. Owing to the Opposite Party's failure to complete the project within the stipulated time despite receiving a substantial portion of the contract value, the Complainants were compelled to continue residing in rented accommodation, incur additional expenditure for completion of the unfinished work, and suffer considerable financial loss, inconvenience and mental agony.
- The Opposite Party is the sole proprietor carrying on business under the name and style of Prime Space Interiors, engaged in providing residential interior design and execution services for valuable consideration. The Opposite Party represented himself to be an experienced and competent interior contractor capable of executing the entrusted work within the agreed timeline and thereby induced the Complainants to enter into the contract.
- The Opposite Party, having accepted a total sum of ₹2,20,000/- from the Complainants towards execution of the interior works, failed to perform his contractual obligations, abandoned the project midway, ignored repeated communications, failed to refund the amounts received, and thereby rendered deficient service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, making him liable to compensate the Complainants for the losses, damages and mental agony suffered by them.
BREIF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The Complainants submit that, having recently acquired their residential premises, they intended to complete the interior works of their family residence after investing their hard-earned savings. While searching for a competent interior contractor, the Opposite Party approached the Complainants through Instagram and thereafter inspected the premises on 17.09.2025. During the said inspection, the Opposite Party represented himself to be an experienced interior contractor possessing the necessary expertise, skilled labour and resources to execute the work and unequivocally assured the Complainants that the entire project would be completed within 25 days.
- The Complainants submit that, relying upon the aforesaid representations, they entered into an agreement dated 23.09.2025 with the Opposite Party for execution of the complete interior works of their residence for a total consideration of ₹3,00,000/-. Despite execution of the agreement, the Opposite Party deliberately retained the original executed agreement and failed to furnish the same to the Complainants despite repeated requests, forwarding only a photograph through WhatsApp. Such conduct deprived the Complainants of an important contractual document and clearly reflects the arbitrary manner in which the Opposite Party conducted the transaction.
- The Complainants submit that, in terms of the agreement and upon the repeated demands and assurances of the Opposite Party, they paid ₹1,00,000/- on 25.09.2025, ₹50,000/- on 09.10.2025 and ₹70,000/- on 13.10.2025, aggregating to ₹2,20,000/-. The said payments were made solely on the representation that the amounts were immediately required for procurement of materials and uninterrupted progress of the work. The payments are duly evidenced by the corresponding payment records.
- The Complainants submit that, immediately after receiving more than 70% of the agreed consideration, the Opposite Party failed to perform his contractual obligations. Contrary to the assurances held out at the time of entering into the agreement, the progress of the work became negligible, labourers remained absent for prolonged periods and the work remained substantially incomplete. Despite repeated requests and reminders, the Opposite Party continued to furnish false assurances and failed to complete the work within the stipulated period of 25 days, thereby committing a fundamental breach of the contract.
- The Complainants submit that, from 17.10.2025, the Opposite Party deliberately stopped responding to telephone calls, WhatsApp messages and all other communications. Between 17.10.2025 and 22.10.2025 alone, the Complainants made nearly 50 telephone calls, besides sending several messages requesting the Opposite Party to resume the work or communicate his intentions. However, the Opposite Party deliberately avoided all communications, leaving the residential premises in an incomplete and unusable condition and causing continuous hardship to the Complainants.
- The Complainants submit that, despite the repeated defaults committed by the Opposite Party, they acted with utmost bona fides and afforded him sufficient opportunities to fulfil his contractual obligations. Upon failure of all amicable efforts, the Complainants approached the jurisdictional Police Authorities. Pursuant to such intervention, the Opposite Party appeared before the Police Authorities and unequivocally assured both the Police Authorities and the Complainants that he would immediately resume and complete the remaining work. Acting upon the said assurance, the Complainants refrained from initiating immediate legal proceedings and granted the Opposite Party a further opportunity to honour his commitments.
- The Complainants submit that even the assurances made before the Police Authorities proved to be false. The Opposite Party attended the work site only briefly, executed a negligible portion of the remaining work merely to create an impression of compliance and thereafter once again abandoned the project without assigning any reason or maintaining any communication. The conduct of the Opposite Party clearly establishes that the assurances extended by him were merely intended to avoid legal consequences and were never accompanied by any genuine intention to perform the contract.
- The Complainants submit that, having completely lost confidence in the integrity and bona fides of the Opposite Party, they were constrained to terminate his services and demanded refund of the amount already received by him. Despite repeated oral and written demands, the Opposite Party neither refunded the sum of ₹2,20,000/- nor completed the remaining work and continues to wrongfully retain the amount received from the Complainants without rendering the agreed services.
- The Complainants submit that, owing to the unlawful acts and omissions of the Opposite Party, they have suffered substantial financial loss, mental agony, inconvenience and hardship. The unfinished condition of the residence compelled the Complainants to continue residing in rented accommodation and to incur additional expenditure towards engaging another contractor for completion of the remaining work at substantially escalated labour and material costs. The Complainants have also been compelled to repeatedly pursue the Opposite Party, approach the Police Authorities and seek legal assistance, all of which would have been wholly unnecessary had the Opposite Party discharged his contractual obligations.
- The Complainants submit that the aforesaid conduct of the Opposite Party constitutes a clear deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, apart from constituting a breach of the contractual obligations undertaken by him. The Opposite Party, after receiving ₹2,20,000/-, failed to complete the agreed work, abandoned the project midway, deliberately avoided all communications and wrongfully retained the consideration received from the Complainants, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Complainants and corresponding wrongful gain to himself.
- The Complainants submit that, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Opposite Party is jointly liable to refund the amount of ₹2,20,000/- received from the Complainants together with compensation towards mental agony, financial loss, escalation in construction costs, consequential damages, litigation expenses and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.