Bangalore District Commission Holds Rental Agency Liable For Failure To Disclose Painting Charges Before Payment Of Rent
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Urban) comprising H. Channegowda (President), K. Anita Shivakumar (Member), and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) has held Nestaway Technologies Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to disclose mandatory painting charges before collecting rent and deposit from a tenant.
Background of the Complaint
The complainant, Vivekkumara Rameshbhai Parmar, was looking to rent a house in February 2025 through the online platform of Nestaway Technologies Pvt. Ltd. On its website, he found a semi-furnished 1BHK house listed at a monthly rent of ₹13,000, with a refundable security deposit of ₹37,500 and a one-time onboarding charge of ₹10,000. The website also advertised amenities such as lift and power backup.
After visiting the property, he realized that these facilities were not available. Following negotiations, the rent was reduced to ₹12,500. In an email dated 27.02.2025, the company’s representative confirmed the rent at ₹12,500, a refundable deposit of ₹37,500, and onboarding fees of ₹10,000. The complainant then paid a total of ₹49,113 towards rent and deposit. However, when the draft Leave and License Agreement was later shared on 15.03.2025, it required payment of painting charges of ₹12,500 at the time of vacating the house. The complainant objected, pointing out that this charge was never mentioned either in the email correspondence or on the company’s website. The company responded that the information was available in the FAQ section, which the complainant argued was neither disclosed upfront nor part of the negotiated terms.
Feeling misled, the complainant chose not to proceed with the agreement and demanded a full refund of ₹49,113. Nestaway refunded only ₹39,113, retaining ₹10,000 without justification. Despite an email reminder and a subsequent legal notice dated 26.03.2025, the company neither refunded the balance nor replied, compelling the complainant to approach the Commission.
Findings of the Commission
The Bench noted that the complainant produced ample documentary evidence, including screenshots of the website, payment receipts, email correspondence, and the legal notice. Importantly, the email dated 27.02.2025, in which the company had provided a detailed breakdown of all charges, made no mention of painting charges. The Commission observed: “In email dated 27.02.2025 (Ex.P6), the opposite party has not at all mentioned painting charges of ₹12,500 payable at the time of vacating the house. This clearly shows that as contended by the complainant, the opposite party has deliberately suppressed the painting charges.”
It held that since the complainant never actually moved into the house and did not sign the Leave and License Agreement due to this deceptive representation, the company had no legal ground to retain any portion of the amount paid. The Commission also noted that despite service of notice, the company failed to appear and contest the complaint, leaving the complainant’s evidence unchallenged.
Order
The Commission concluded that Nestaway was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by suppressing material information. The complaint was partly allowed with the following directions:
Refund of ₹10,000 with interest at 9% p.a. from 15.03.2025 till realization.
Payment of ₹20,000 as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
Payment of ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
The order directed compliance within 45 days, failing which the compensation would carry 12% interest p.a. from the date of default. Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed.
Cause Title: Mr. Vivekkumara V. Nestaway Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: Complaint No. 129/2025
Coram: H. Channegowda [President], K. Anita Shivakumar [Member], Suma Anil Kumar [Member]
