Chandigarh: Activewear firm to pay ₹3k for defective shoes
The complainant, Harlove Singh Rajput of Sector 38 West, had purchased a pair of shoes for ₹6,000 from the ASICS showroom in Sector 17 on July 30, 2021, and found them uncomfortable to wear
Rejecting a refund for a pair of defective shoes has cost an activewear company dear.
Holding ASICS India guilty of causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-1 has directed the firm to provide a partial refund for the shoes and pay ₹3,000 as compensation.
The complainant, Harlove Singh Rajput of Sector 38 West, had purchased a pair of shoes for ₹6,000 from the ASICS showroom in Sector 17 on July 30, 2021.
But on using the shoes, he found them uncomfortable and a gel had also started oozing out from the sole.
Rajput submitted that he informed the shoe manufacturer and returned the shoes to them. However, his refund claim was rejected on the grounds that the defect was due to normal wear and tear.
Contending that the firm’s stand was unjustifiable, as he had worn the shoes for less than 30 days, he approached the consumer court.
{{/usCountry}}Contending that the firm’s stand was unjustifiable, as he had worn the shoes for less than 30 days, he approached the consumer court.
{{/usCountry}}In their reply, the firm informed the commission that the complainant bought the shoes in July, but informed them of the alleged defect in October.
{{/usCountry}}In their reply, the firm informed the commission that the complainant bought the shoes in July, but informed them of the alleged defect in October.
{{/usCountry}}They said to address the complainant’s grievance, they sent the shoes for inspection as per the company’s terms and conditions of the company. However, the test report suggested that there was no manufacturing defect and it was a normal wear and tear issue. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
{{/usCountry}}They said to address the complainant’s grievance, they sent the shoes for inspection as per the company’s terms and conditions of the company. However, the test report suggested that there was no manufacturing defect and it was a normal wear and tear issue. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
{{/usCountry}}The firm further claimed that they had offered to exchange the shoe with a product of same value or refund their value, but the complainant demanded another product valued at ₹14,999. Denying any deficiency in service, they prayed for the plea’s dismissal.
{{/usCountry}}The firm further claimed that they had offered to exchange the shoe with a product of same value or refund their value, but the complainant demanded another product valued at ₹14,999. Denying any deficiency in service, they prayed for the plea’s dismissal.
{{/usCountry}}The commission observed that while the warranty period was expiring on October 30, 2021, the complainant approached the firm on October 27 itself. “We are also not convinced with the firm’s stand that this was a normal wear and tear problem ,” the commission said, while directing the firm to pay the complainant a compensation of ₹3,000 and a partial refund of ₹3,599 for the shoes.
