Warranty claim denied after Rs 13,000 shoes ‘damaged’ in 2 months, man wins Rs 21,000

A Telangana consumer commission has directed a shoe company to pay Rs 20,999 to a man after rejecting his warranty claim for a pair of shoes that allegedly developed visible peeling and damage within two months despite careful use. The commission noted that the company did not provide a technical inspection report to justify its “regular wear and tear” claim and found the company deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practice.

President Chitneni Latha Kumar, along with members D Madhavi Latha and Kathyayani Khandavilli, of the Rangareddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, was hearing the complaint filed by a 45-year-old man who purchased the shoes worth Rs 12,999 in October 2025.

“The mere characterisation of the defect as ‘regular wear and tear’, without any supporting technical material, cannot satisfactorily justify rejection of the warranty claim, particularly when the defect was reported within a short period after purchase, and the claim was supported by photographs,” the August 20 order read.

Warranty claim rejected

The complainant claimed that he purchased a pair of shoes from the company in October 2025 for Rs 12,999. He pointed out that as per the policy available on the company’s official website, warranty claims are admissible where the product is more than 14 days and less than three months old, the defect is a manufacturing defect, and the shoes have been appropriately used.

The man claimed that within two months of purchase, the shoes developed visible defects, indicating a manufacturing defect during careful and appropriate use. He then approached the company for a warranty claim, but the company rejected it on the ground of “regular wear and tear.” Despite his earnest efforts, his request was not considered, and the man then moved the commission, alleging negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the company.

‘Resorted to unfair trade practices’

The commission found that despite service of notice, the company failed to contest the complaint and held that, in the absence of any contrary evidence, and having regard to the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, the warranty claim was rejected without sufficient and specific justification.

“This commission is of the considered view that the opposite parties (shoe company) are not only deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant but have also resorted to unfair trade practice,” it added.

Story continues below this ad

The commission noted that the man sought either replacement of the shoes or refund of Rs 12,999 but pointed out that the defect arose within a short period after purchase and that the warranty claim was not properly dealt with. It accordingly held that directing another warranty assessment at this stage would not provide an effective remedy and found it appropriate to refund the purchase price to the man.

Accordingly, the commission directed the company to refund Rs 12,999 to the complainant, with an instruction to return the shoes immediately upon receipt of the amount. It also directed the company to pay Rs 5,000 to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused by the deficient handling and rejection of the warranty claim.

Lastly, the commission directed the company to pay Rs 3,000 as litigation costs to the man within 45 days.

Takeaway

This ruling highlights that a warranty claim cannot be rejected merely by describing a defect as “regular wear and tear” without technical material or evidence to support the claim, particularly when the defect is reported within a short period of purchase.

Story continues below this ad

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Telangana: 0771-2582902) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Ordered Rs 10,000 phone but got ‘soap bars’, woman wins Rs 20,000 from online platform

School ‘refuses refund’ after daughter’s admission cancelled, father wins Rs 36,000

Theatre played 22 minutes of ads before starting movie, ordered to pay Rs 75,000