Pune consumer commission denies ₹1,800 cleaning refund over unresolved attendance evidence

The consumer disputes commission in Pune has denied Leena Naik’s claim for a ₹1,800 refund from TidyNest Home Care, finding that she proved payment and an agreed cleaning appointment window but not her entitlement to recover the money. No payment or other relief was ordered.

The dispute turned on what an unanswered call could establish. Naik said the cleaning never happened and the only call described in the record came after the promised arrival window. The commission nevertheless found the events within that window unresolved—and expressly declined to find that TidyNest had performed the cleaning or attended on time.

The booking confirmation established that Naik paid ₹1,800 for an arrival between 10 a.m. and noon on 18 February 2026. Its repeated presentation did not make it several independent records: it remained evidence of the agreement and payment, rather than proof of what happened at the flat.

The commission distinguished the parties’ references to a call screenshot from production of the screenshot itself. It was not separately presented as an exhibit, so its contents were not treated as independently authenticated. Naik’s account of an unanswered call at 12:24 p.m. remained part of the record.

Even accepting that time, the commission reasoned, the call showed an attempt after the appointment window, not whether a worker had arrived or tried to make contact earlier. Naik was entitled to rely on the agreed window; the late call did not itself require her to remain available beyond noon.

TidyNest supplied no call log, arrival record or other evidence substantiating its access explanation. That weakness did not, however, relieve Naik of supporting her refund request under the supplied rules. With neither account resolving events during the window, the commission found non-performance insufficiently proved and no basis for monetary relief.

Naik argued that she had paid for a service within a defined period, not an indefinite wait. She acknowledged receiving the unanswered call and having left by 12:24 p.m., but maintained that the call neither changed the booking terms nor showed that cleaning had been done. She also acknowledged having no separate record establishing whether anyone arrived earlier.

TidyNest sought rejection of the refund, saying its worker called without receiving an answer and suggesting access was unavailable. It relied on booking terms allowing payment to be retained when access could not be provided, but offered no further supporting evidence with its final request.

The booking concerned cleaning at Naik’s Pune flat. TidyNest had reserved a worker and retained her payment after the unanswered call, prompting her demand for its return.

The decision leaves the underlying performance dispute unresolved. It does not establish that TidyNest cleaned the flat, attended within the promised window or validly invoked its access terms. Its narrower conclusion is that the evidence presented did not establish Naik’s claim to the refund.