Branded shoes ‘develop cracks’ within 6 weeks, mother-son duo wins Rs 13,000 payout

A Rajasthan consumer commission has directed a footwear manufacturing company and its retailer to refund Rs 7,999 to a mother and son after a pair of branded shoes they purchased allegedly developed manufacturing defects within six weeks of purchase.

A bench of president Suman Gaur Pandey and member Manish Parmar of the Udaipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also awarded Rs 5,000 compensation for mental agony and harassment, holding the opposite parties deficient in service.

“The shoes manufactured by the brand, which were sold to the complainants by the seller, developed a manufacturing defect within just one and a half months. Despite the complaint, the opposite parties (outlet and manufacturer) did not replace the shoes, which establishes the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainants,” the commission said on September 28.

Defects within weeks

The complainants and her son purchased a branded pair of shoes for Rs 7,999 from an outlet operated by the first opposite party and manufactured by the second opposite party.

According to the complainants, the shoes developed manufacturing defects within about one and a half months of purchase. The sole began cracking and breaking, while marks appeared on the shoes, rendering them unfit for use. The complainants alleged that the seller had assured them that the shoes could be exchanged within three months if any defect arose.

The complainants approached the store seeking replacement, but the seller allegedly refused and said the shoes would have to be sent to the company for repair. They claimed that despite repeated requests for replacement and issuing a legal notice, the opposite parties neither replaced the defective shoes nor responded to the notice.

Alleging deficiency in service, the complainants approached the commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking a refund of the purchase price of Rs 7,999, compensation for mental and physical harassment and legal expenses. The commission proceeded ex parte (unilaterally) against the opposite parties as they did not appear before it.

Story continues below this ad

Failure to replace amounts to deficiency: Order

The commission observed that the shoes purchased by the complainants developed manufacturing defects within six weeks of purchase. Despite the defects, the seller and manufacturer neither replaced the shoes nor repaired it, amounting to deficiency in service.

“From the ex parte arguments of the complainants and the documentary evidence submitted by the complainants on record, it is clear that the said shoes were manufactured by one opposite party and sold by another opposite party,” the order noted.

The commission held that the opposite parties’ failure to address the manufacturing defects, despite the complainants’ request for replacement, justified granting relief. It directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 7,999, along with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the complaint until payment. It also ordered them to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Takeaway

The judgment highlighted that manufacturers and retailers may be held liable when products develop manufacturing defects soon after purchase and complaints remain unresolved. By ordering a refund with interest and compensation, the commission reinforces consumer rights and accountability for deficiency in service.

Story continues below this ad

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Rajasthan: 1800-180-6030) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Family trip marred by ‘5-hour airport delay, poor hotels, extra bill’, man wins Rs 38,000

Sleep apnoea surgery claim denied, private insurer told to pay Delhi man Rs 1.98 lakh

New car develops persistent ‘knocking sound’, man wins Rs 1.6 lakh from maker, dealer