Jacket tears within 46 minutes of first use, Chandigarh man wins Rs 31,000 from store

A tear underneath the arm of a man’s jacket within 46 minutes of its first use has led to a legal dispute, with the Chandigarh Consumer Commission directing the store to pay Rs 31,000 to the complainant. Rejecting the store’s claim that the damage occurred due to external use, and not a manufacturing defect, the commission noted the absence of an independent inspection report or expert opinion.

President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and member Brij Mohan Shama observed that the mere recording of an internal opinion that the damage was attributable to the complainant cannot be treated as conclusive proof, particularly when the store has neither established the basis of such assessment nor produced any expert evidence in support thereof. 

In its November 4 order, the commission said, “The tear in question is stated to be located underneath the arm, at a relatively inconspicuous portion of the jacket. Therefore, the contention of the OPs that the complainant had an opportunity to inspect the product cannot, by itself, absolve them of liability. The principle of ‘Buyer Beware’ don’t apply to Consumers because the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a benevolent and welfare Act.”

The bench held that despite alleging that the damage occurred due to external usage or mishandling by the complainant, the store has “failed to place on record any independent inspection report, technical assessment or other convincing material demonstrating the cause of the tear.”

The order further noted, “It is safe to hold that the OPs(store) have failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant, thereby committing deficiency in service and adopting an unfair trade practice, which caused harassment to the complainant, and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.” 

Tear on jacket within 45 minutes of being worn

The complainant had purchased three jackets from a Store at the mall in Chandigarh, on December 25, 2025, out of which one jacket was worth Rs.10,999. The said jacket was worn for the first time on January 1, whereupon, within approximately 46 minutes, the complainant noticed a small tear underneath the arm, at an inconspicuous location which could not have been detected at the time of purchase. 

Immediately thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint with the store through e-mail dated January 10, and furnished the requisite details and documents on January 11, as sought by the store. Although the store initially informed the complainant on January 12 that the matter had been escalated for review, they suddenly rejected the complaint on January 14, alleging that the damage had occurred due to the complainant’s fault and that no manufacturing defect was found.

Story continues below this ad

However, no proper physical inspection of the jacket was conducted in the presence of the complainant, nor was any inspection report, photograph, technical assessment or other supporting evidence. Despite repeated requests and follow-ups, the store failed to provide any satisfactory resolution. 

Consequently, the complainant served a legal notice dated January 15 upon the store through e-mail and Speed Post; however, the store failed to respond or comply with the same. 

Alleging the aforesaid act of store amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant with a prayer to direct the store to replace the defective jacket with a new jacket or alternatively refund Rs.10,999 along with interest; compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation expenses. 

The store, in its written version, has stated that at the time of purchase, the complainant was afforded an adequate opportunity to inspect and try the product and accepted the same without raising any objection or complaint. It is stated that on January 1, after approximately 15 days from the date of purchase, the complainant approached the store regarding a tear in the jacket and initially sought assistance for its repair, representing that the damage had occurred from his end. 

Story continues below this ad

It was submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent material or proof whatsoever establishing that the alleged damage existed at the time of purchase itself or that the same was attributable to any manufacturing defect. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as all other allegations, the store has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

Deficiency in service of store

The commission noted that the store, instead of providing a reasoned technical assessment supported by relevant material, rejected the claim on the basis of their internal findings. In these circumstances, the OPs have failed to satisfactorily explain the appearance of the tear in the jacket shortly after its first use. The circumstances, therefore, lead us to conclude that the OPs have failed to establish that the damage was attributable to the complainant and that the product supplied to him was of the requisite quality and standard.

The commission directed the store to refund Rs 11,000 for the jacket and an additional Rs 20,000 for harassment and litigation expenses.

Takeaway

The ruling highlights that the mere fact that the product was tried and accepted at the time of purchase does not, by itself, rule out the possibility of a defect which could not reasonably have been detected during ordinary inspection. 

Story continues below this ad

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Chandigarh helpline:0172-270-0183) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories 

Railway parking staff demand Rs 20 from man picking up parents, panel orders Rs 13,000

Car stolen, claim rejected over keys left in ignition, insurer liable to pay Rs 4.25 lakh

Rs 10 parking fee dispute ends in Rs 22 lakh penalty for hospital, contractor