Bengaluru: A restaurant owner from Indiranagar, proprietor of Annapoorneshwari Foods, saw his business dreams crumble after Studio Coromandel in Rajajinagar failed to begin interior work, despite receiving about Rs 9.7 lakh on Feb 14, 2024. The I additional district consumer commission held the firm guilty of deficiency in service after it ignored multiple notices, including one via newspaper.The court observed the firm’s “callous attitude” and intent to “escape liability”. It ordered a refund with 6% interest and Rs 2,000 as litigation costs. The story began when the restaurant owner decided to renovate his outlet and convert it into a café. Around that time, he came across Studio Coromandel, an interior design and architecture firm. Convinced by assurances and representations made by the firm, he paid almost Rs 9.7 lakh for the renovation — not knowing that his troubles were just beginning.The firm allegedly promised to complete the project on time, and the complainant dreamt of launching his café soon after. However, the firm never even started the work, causing him substantial financial loss as he was unable to begin operations. Instead of honouring its commitment, the firm issued a frivolous notice on April 27, 2024, referring to an alleged contract dated Feb 12 — a contract the owner said he had no knowledge of.In his reply dated May 23, he called upon the firm to furnish a copy. But to date, no details have been shared. Meanwhile, the firm stopped answering his calls and failed to take any steps to begin the project. Left with no option, the owner issued a legal notice on May 23. The firm neither responded nor complied with the demands. Fed up, Annapoorneshwari Foods filed a consumer complaint on Aug 14, 2024.The owner further alleged not only him, but several other customers have been cheated by the firm, making it liable to refund the money and compensate for the hardship and inconvenience caused. Following the complaint, a notice was issued to the firm and later published in a publication as well. But the firm remained absent and was placed as ex parte.After going through all the proof, the commission bench observed that the firm’s failure to act despite receiving money amounted to a clear deficiency in service. “The conduct of the opposite party (Studio Coromandel) shows a callous attitude and an attempt to escape liability,” the bench noted. In its July 2025 order, the commission ordered Studio Coromandel to refund about Rs 9.7 lakh with 6% interest from the date of the complaint.
