Chandigarh: Firm fined Rs 5k for selling defective shoes

CHANDIGARH: The district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed an outdoor gear and apparel firm to pay Rs 5,000 to a Panchkula resident in Haryana to whom they sold a defective product. They were also directed to refund Rs 2,909, the price he paid for the defective product.
Amit Kumar, a resident of Panchkula, in his complaint stated that he purchased two pair of shoes from Wildcraft India store situated at DLF, IT Park, Chandigarh on July 18, 2018.
It was averred that the said shoes were found to be defective and the same was brought to the notice of the store authorities with request to refund the cost, but they lingered on the matter and ultimately refused to refund any amount. They offered him a 10% discount on any other product purchased. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
The store authorities while admitting the sale of the shoes in question, denied that the same were defective. It was stated that they were ready to offer a discount on fresh products or replace the defective pair of shoes. It was also stated that after using the pair of shoes, the complainant insisted to refund the price of the product from the beginning. It was further stated that it was clearly mentioned on the invoice that the product will only be exchanged. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The forum after hearing both sides stated that the evidence placed on record by the complainant debunked the assertion put forth by them. The email correspondence sent to Wildcraft is enough to establish that the firm was not only made aware about the defect in the shoes but also request for refund of the money/cost of the product has been turned down by them. The offer made by Wildcraft about giving 10% discount on purchase of another product against the refund request of the complainant in respect of defective shoes is not justified. They should have either replaced the shoes or refund the cost thereof, which they did not do and therefore, it constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.”
They were then directed to pay up.