Denied refund as he used new pair of shoes to ‘identify’ defect, buyer wins Rs 7,000 payout

“It is a matter of common sense that when a consumer purchases a product such as shoes, some use of the product is necessary to determine whether it is defective. If a defect becomes apparent within a short period of use, the company cannot refuse to replace the product or refund its price merely because it has been used. Without using the product, a consumer cannot reasonably ascertain whether it suffers from any defect,” the commission said on June 27.

The order added that if the company wished to dispute the complainant’s claim, they could have obtained and produced an expert opinion regarding the condition of the shoes, but they made no such attempt. “The (company’s) failure to replace the defective product or refund its price amounted to a deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice,” it noted.

Influenced by the company’s advertisements, the complainant purchased a pair of Red Chief shoes for Rs 2,009 through Amazon on February 26, 2025. The shoes were delivered on March 4, but on opening the package, he found them to be of poor quality and allegedly defective.

He sought to return the product on March 6, 2025, but the delivery agent refused to accept it on the ground that the shoes had been used. The complainant then emailed the company seeking a refund, but it rejected his request, claiming the product had been accidentally damaged.

After receiving no response to a legal notice, he approached the district consumer forum, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking replacement, refund, compensation of Rs 50,000 and Rs 25,000 towards litigation expenses.

Product had been used: Company

The company admitted that the complainant had ordered a pair of Red Chief shoes through Amazon on February 25, 2025, after being influenced by the company’s advertisements, and paid Rs 2,009 online.

However, they denied that the shoes were defective. They contended that Red Chief is a reputed brand known across India for manufacturing high-quality footwear and does not sell inferior products. According to them, although the complainant initiated a return request on March 6, 2025, citing “poor order reason,” the Amazon delivery agent refused to accept the return on March 7, 2025, because the shoes had already been used, which was contrary to Amazon’s return policy.

The company further claimed that when the complainant later sent an email seeking a refund, the request was rejected because the shoes had been accidentally damaged after use. They maintained that the product had no manufacturing defect and denied the allegation that the shoes had torn on its own. They also argued that the complainant failed to produce any photographs or other evidence showing the alleged defect and had falsely levelled allegations against the company.

Forum orders relief

The commission, however, noted that the documents on record support the complainant’s contention that he had cancelled the order after finding the quality of the shoes unsatisfactory, and lodged a complaint on the official website seeking return of the product. However, the company did not accept the return.

“In the present case, the complainant asserted that the shoes tore on their own within a month of purchase, whereas the opposite parties (company) claimed that the damage was accidental. The complainant produced the defective shoes before the Commission as evidence,” the order stated.

The commission allowed the complaint and directed the company to replace the defective shoes with a new pair of the same quality and value or refund Rs 2,009 within 45 days. It also awarded Rs 5,000 for mental agony and Rs 2,000 towards litigation costs. In case of default, the awarded amount would carry 8 per cent annual interest from the date of filing the complaint.

Takeaway

The ruling reinforces that consumers cannot be denied replacement or refunds merely because they used a product to identify a defect. It places the burden on manufacturers to substantiate claims of accidental damage with evidence and underscores that failure to honour legitimate warranty or return claims constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Uttarakhand helpline: 1800-180-4188) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.