Chandigarh: Man sold defective sports shoes awarded ₹18k refund
The complainant had bought a pair of shoes from the Nike store in Elante Mall on June 28, 2021, but it got damaged after being used for a few days
A Chandigarh resident who took a sportswear company to consumer court over a defective pair of shoes has been awarded a full refund of ₹18,695.
Karan Singh Sidhu, a resident of Sector 19, had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-2, complaining that he had bought a pair of shoes from the Nike store in Elante Mall on June 28, 2021.
But due to a manufacturing defect, the shoes got damaged after being used for a few days. Though he received a replacement from the store, the new pair also met a similar fate.
Sidhu submitted that he approached the store for the second time in September 2021 to raise a claim, but the store rejected it. He time and again requested the store to refund the money paid for the shoes, but in vain, which he claimed amounted to deficiency in after-sales service and unfair trade practice.
Appearing before the commission, the opposite parties claimed that the complaint was false and not maintainable.
{{/usCountry}}Appearing before the commission, the opposite parties claimed that the complaint was false and not maintainable.
{{/usCountry}}They claimed that the first pair of shoes was replaced by the Elante store on June 28, 2021. While the complainant claimed that the new pair of shoes was damaged after using for a few days, he failed to provide the exact date of damage.
{{/usCountry}}They claimed that the first pair of shoes was replaced by the Elante store on June 28, 2021. While the complainant claimed that the new pair of shoes was damaged after using for a few days, he failed to provide the exact date of damage.
{{/usCountry}}After a claim was raised, examination of the photographs submitted by the complainant conclusively revealed that the product was damaged externally, and exhibited excessive wear and tear, which could not be attributed to a manufacturing defect.
{{/usCountry}}After a claim was raised, examination of the photographs submitted by the complainant conclusively revealed that the product was damaged externally, and exhibited excessive wear and tear, which could not be attributed to a manufacturing defect.
{{/usCountry}}The commission observed that goods purchased by the consumer should be merchandise quality and it should have at least a normal life span of shelf life.
{{/usCountry}}The commission observed that goods purchased by the consumer should be merchandise quality and it should have at least a normal life span of shelf life.
{{/usCountry}}In the present complaint, the opposite parties rejected the claim of the consumer on the ground that it was damaged externally and exhibited excessive wear and tear, but failed to prove this on record by way of any expert report after examination of the shoes in question.
“It is observed that the opposite parties failed either to rectify the defect in shoes or to refund the price of it, which amounts to unfair trade practice,” the commission further observed, while directing that the full amount paid for the shoes be refunded.
Firm fined for selling defective headphones
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-2 has directed Harman International (India) Private Limited to pay ₹5,000 as compensation and refund ₹899 for a defective pair of headphones sold in 2019.
As per the complaint filed by Raj Kumar of Sector 24, he had purchased JBL headphones on June 10, 2019, from a Harman International authorised shop in Jhajjar, Haryana. He had purchased it for ₹899 with a one-year warranty.
But the headphones stopped working on January 28, 2020, within the warranty period. When he approached the authorised repair centre in Sector 22-C, they refused to repair it, citing physical damage, even though the product was not damaged, which amounts to unfair trade practice.
As Harman International India and the retail store in Jhajjar did not appear before this commission, they were proceeded against ex parte.
The repair centre through their counsel filed their reply, stating that the present complaint was not maintainable; the product was out of warranty as the earphone was found to be physically damaged and the complainant was informed that the earphones were out of warranty, as they were physically damaged. They denied all allegations made against them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The commission observed that the complainant had placed on record his affidavit that the product was not damaged. The service centre did not produce any kind of “test report” proving that the product was physically damaged. The burden of proof was upon the opposite parties to prove that it was damaged by way of some expert or test report and their plea was not sustainable.
Allowing Kumar’s complaint, the commission observed, “As the product stopped working within the warranty period, opposite parties are liable to replace the product or refund the cost of product.”
Thus, it directed that the amount be refunded and a further lump sum compensation of ₹5,000 be paid to the consumer.