A couple hired interior designers to renovate their Gurgaon apartment within 45 days, hoping to move in before their rental lease expired. Instead, they alleged, the project ran late, furniture arrived with defects and poor supervision added to their troubles. A Delhi consumer commission has now directed the designers to pay Rs 80,000 for deficient services and litigation costs, while holding that they could not be blamed for delays caused by contractors hired by the couple.President Suresh Kumar Gupta and member Harshali Kaur of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-West, were hearing a complaint filed by Shaurya Roy and his wife Insiyah Vahanvaty against the interior designers.“To this extent, we feel that the OPs (opposite parties: interior designers) are deficient in service in not informing the complainants that the 45-day timeline could not be met in light of delay in work by their hired contractors, but they cannot be held liable for the delay itself due to which the complainants had to stay in a hotel and incurred expenses,” the commission said on October 6.The dispute arose from a renovation project in 2014, when the couple wanted their Gurgaon apartment ready before their lease on existing rented accommodation expired. The commission partly allowed their complaint, awarding Rs 50,000 as compensation for deficient services and Rs 30,000 towards litigation costs.45-day deadline for renovationAccording to the complaint, the couple hired the designers in September 2014 to redesign their apartment. They said they had made it clear that the work needed to be completed by November 1, 2014, , as the lease on their existing rented accommodation was due to expire.The designers allegedly agreed to the 45-day timeline, with civil work beginning on September 15, 2014. The couple paid Rs 1,55,440 towards design and supervision services against an agreed fee of Rs 2,47,500. They also paid Rs 1.8 lakh as an advance for furniture and Rs 45,000 to a carpenter arranged through the designers.The couple alleged that the project cost increased, defective work required additional expenditure, and the apartment was not ready within the promised period, forcing them to stay in a hotel after leaving their rented accommodation.Story continues below this adThey also complained about defects in furniture, including beds, a dining table, sofas and chairs. Their allegations included missing components, crooked table legs, poor finishing, loose upholstery and changes to designs without their consent.Designers denied responsibility for delaysThe designers denied negligence, arguing that their role involved design, coordination and supervision, while the couple had independently hired contractors to execute civil, electrical and plumbing work.They maintained that the delays resulted from the contractors’ work and changes in the couple’s requirements. They also said the furniture defects had been corrected and alleged that the couple had failed to pay outstanding professional fees.The commission examined the parties’ emails, affidavits and other documents before assessing their respective responsibilities and found that the designers knew about the deadline. It relied on an email dated September 4, 2014, in which they wrote: “since we are looking at a 45 day timeline we would like that this process of designing begins at the earliest.”Story continues below this adHowever, it found insufficient documentary evidence to substantiate certain allegations concerning damaged cupboards, tiles that had to be relaid and other civil work that allegedly required repairs. Bills and proof of payments to other contractors could have supported these claims, it observed.The commission held that delays caused by contractors hired by the couple could not automatically be attributed to the designers. Their deficiency lay in failing to communicate that the contractors were not meeting the timeline, despite their commitment to supervise the work.It also found that the designers’ admission that defects in the dining table and other issues had been corrected supported the conclusion that the furniture had not been supplied in usable condition despite payment.The commission directed the designers to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for deficient services and Rs 30,000 towards litigation costs. The order requires compliance within three months of receipt of a copy. If the designers fail to comply, the Rs 50,000 compensation will attract interest at 9 per cent from October 15, 2015, the date the complaint was admitted, until realisation.Story continues below this adTakeawayThe order highlights that customers must put deadlines, scope of work, payment terms and supervision responsibilities in writing in case any dispute arises in future. Keep invoices, emails and photographs of defects to support any compensation claim.For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi: 1800-11-4000) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Don’t miss out on these stories:11 ‘unauthorised’ UPI transactions drain bank account, Punjab man wins Rs 82,000‘Asked to leave’ Kasauli villa 3 hours after check-in, 4 women win Rs 1.4 lakh payoutStory continues below this adRs 9,000 premium shoes start ‘falling apart’ in 15 days, man wins replacement, Rs 2,500