NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Goa, has held a renovation contractor deficient in service for failing to complete work on a traditional Goan house, after she was paid Rs 18 lakh by the 67-year-old owner. In its order dated October 16, the commission partly allowed the complaint and directed her to refund Rs 11 lakh with interest, and to pay Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation and Rs 30,000 as litigation costs.
How the dispute arose
According to the order, the complainant, Dr Hune Margulies, engaged contractor Devika Ana Maria Martins to renovate and restore his residential property at Divar, Goa. He said she presented herself as an expert consultant and contractor in restoring old Goan houses.On October 13, 2025, she submitted an estimate and scope of work valued at Rs 45,45,580, with a 45-day timeline. The complainant alleged that she then demanded two advance payments of Rs 9 lakh each, contrary to the agreed payment schedule. He paid the first by cheque on November 1, 2025, and the second through NEFT on November 22, 2025.He alleged that, after receiving Rs 18 lakh, she repeatedly changed the specifications and the people introduced as specialists. He said traditional lime plaster, which was part of the agreed scope, was not used. According to him, several painters told him they had been instructed to use ordinary, lower-grade paint instead.He alleged that she carried out only partial work and abandoned the project in late November 2025. He said she stopped visiting the site and told the labourers to collect their equipment and leave, leaving debris, excavated ground and incomplete doors and windows. He also alleged that she removed or retained a personal bag of his containing original Goan window “calva” shells, the translucent mother-of-pearl oyster shells used in traditional windows.The complainant said he contacted labourers and suppliers to check the expenditure. He was told that around Rs 7 lakh had been spent on labour and supplies, with some payments still unpaid. He also said she had told them she had received only Rs 2 lakh from him. These are his accounts of what others told him.He sought a refund of about Rs 11 lakh and said he had to supervise the remaining work and settle outstanding bills himself to prevent further deterioration of the property.In an email dated December 23, 2025, Martins stated that the amounts incurred were detailed in an invoice already shared with him, and that any balance not paid to her subcontractors might be refunded. She also offered to arrange for her carpenter to complete the remaining work. The invoice, dated December 22, 2025, listed Rs 18 lakh less Rs 3.24 lakh GST. The complainant disputed her accounting and the invoice, saying it did not match the work actually done.He then issued a legal notice seeking the refund and the return of the shells. He said it went unanswered. He also approached the Old Goa police station to lodge a complaint, and the statement he submitted forms part of the record. He filed the consumer complaint on May 18, 2026.Martins did not appear or file a written version despite being served notice, and the commission proceeded ex parte against her.
What the commission found
The bench of president Bela N Naik and member Rejitha Rajan held that Margulies was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It noted that he had hired the services for his residential property and that nothing on record suggested a commercial purpose.It said the absence of a formally signed agreement did not negate the engagement, which could be established through the proposal, payment records, correspondence and the parties’ conduct.On deficiency in service, the commission relied on the scope of work, payment records, photographs of the premises and the correspondence between the parties. It said the photographs supported the conclusion that portions of the work remained incomplete.“The evidence, considered cumulatively, establishes material shortcomings in the performance of the renovation and restoration services, including the failure to complete portions of the work forming part of the engagement established by the evidence,” the commission observed.The commission added that the finding rested on the evidence and not merely on the fact that the contractor was proceeded against ex parte. It also said the finding did not by itself establish the exact refundable amount.It rejected the allegation of unfair trade practice, saying a failure to perform a contract does not automatically amount to one.“The failure to complete the renovation work, the dispute regarding the invoice and the refusal to refund the amount claimed do not, without further evidence satisfying the statutory requirements, automatically establish an unfair trade practice,” it said.On the refund, the commission noted that Martins’ email did not quantify any balance and was not an unconditional admission that Rs 11 lakh was payable. It also said the Rs 7 lakh expenditure figure had to be assessed against the evidence on record, and that the invoice entries did not by themselves prove the work was done or the amounts spent. After examining the payments, the incomplete work, the invoice and the correspondence, it found that the Rs 11 lakh claimed remained refundable.On the calva shells, the commission said the allegation was not proved and should be assessed separately on the evidence. It noted that the quantity varied across the record: over 400 shells in the police statement, over 500 in the complaint and over 1,500 in the affidavit.The commission also recorded two discrepancies in the documents. The itemised heads in the October 13 estimate add up to Rs 47,45,580, not the stated total of Rs 45,45,580. The estimate gives a 45-day timeline, while a separate timeline document dated October 22, 2025 refers to 40 days.The commission awarded less than the complainant sought. He had asked for Rs 7 lakh in compensation, Rs 1.5 lakh in litigation costs and interest at 18 percent. It awarded Rs 2.5 lakh, Rs 30,000 and 12 percent interest. It said the compensation was for mental agony, harassment, prolonged hardship and inconvenience, and was not meant to duplicate any expenditure covered by the refund.
Final order
- Refund Rs 11 lakh with 12 percent annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.
- Pay Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation.
- Pay Rs 30,000 as litigation costs.
She must comply within 45 days of receiving a copy of the order. If she fails to comply with the directions within this period, the Rs 2.5 lakh compensation will carry additional interest at 9 percent per annum from the expiry of the deadline until payment.