The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Livspace India Private Limited to refund Rs 71.62 lakh to a Goregaon homeowner after finding that a renovation project was incomplete, substandard and created a life-threatening hazard. The refund is to carry 9 per cent interest, according to the order passed on November 5 and reported by Mid-Day on November 13.
The commission criticised the Bengaluru-headquartered interior design firm for what it described as “administrative chaos and lack of professional oversight”. It said key personnel exited the project without notice and project managers were replaced unilaterally, without the homeowner’s consent, leaving the multimillion-rupee work “completely rudderless for months”.
The complainant, a Goregaon resident, had engaged Livspace to design and renovate his apartment on the 30th floor of a Mumbai building. He paid Rs 71,62,004 in advance for the work. The project was initially scheduled for completion within 90 to 120 days, with handover due on July 1, 2024. The handover date was later extended to September 1, 2024, but the homeowner said the company failed to complete the project even after the extension.
The homeowner also alleged that the work created serious safety risks inside the apartment. One incident cited before the commission involved a kitchen shutter falling on his wife’s head because of faulty installation. He approached the consumer panel after claiming that repeated delays, poor workmanship, mental distress and the company’s lack of response had left him without an effective resolution.
In its order, the commission said Livspace had promised branded products and high-grade materials but systematically substituted them with lower-grade alternatives. It described the conduct as a deceptive trade practice and called the workmanship grossly negligent and hazardous. The commission also characterised the company’s conduct as the “epitome of negligence and deficiency in service”.
The case highlights the contractual and safety risks homeowners can face when large renovation projects are managed through a single design-and-execution platform. Such projects involve multiple personnel, suppliers and installation teams, but the commission’s observations focused on the firm’s responsibility for professional oversight, project continuity and the quality of materials and workmanship delivered to the customer.
The order follows a dispute over both service delivery and safety inside a private residence. The commission’s direction requires the company to return the advance amount with 9 per cent interest, while its findings record the concerns raised over incomplete work, personnel changes, material substitution and hazardous installation. The reported order is the immediate legal outcome in the case.
