Rs 6,000 running shoes lose their soles within a month, company ordered to pay Rs 16,000

According to the complainant, he had bought a pair of running shoes from the company’s store on August 30, 2020. Although the shoes had a listed price of Rs 12,999, they were sold to him for Rs 6,499, at a 50 per cent discount. Within about a month of purchase, he allegedly began experiencing discomfort while using the shoes and discovered that the sole had separated from the heel and the adhesive had come off from the sides.

He claimed the defect left him stranded during his daily walk and could have caused a serious accident. He sent the shoes back to the store and was told that his had been approved. However, instead of replacing the shoes with the same model or refunding the purchase price, the company allegedly asked him to accept a credit voucher.

The complainant said that despite repeatedly requesting the shop to replace the shoes with a similar model or refund the paid amount, his request was denied. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he moved the consumer forum.

The sportswear company admitted that it had approved the complainant’s claim for exchange, but said its technical analysis had revealed no manufacturing defect. It asserted that the exchange offer was merely a goodwill gesture.

The company further alleged that the complainant demanded an illegal sum instead of accepting the exchange. It denied offering the man a credit voucher for the purchase amount.

‘Substandard product’

• The commission refused to accept that there was no manufacturing defect in the shoes. If so, there would have been no reason for the company to approve the customer’s claim for exchange.
• The company had failed to produce any technical report, expert opinion or laboratory analysis to support its assertion that the shoes were free from manufacturing defects.
• Without evidence, the company’s claims alone cannot disprove the complainant’s documentary proof. There was also no proof that the complainant had demanded an illegal sum from the company.
• Even if the customer had declined an exchange, the company could have refunded or credited the purchase amount.

Refund, relief ordered

Observing that a consumer buying an expensive branded running shoe is entitled to expect reasonable durability, the commission held that the appearance of defects within a month indicated that the product was substandard. Since several years had lapsed and replacement of the defective shoes was no longer practical, the commission directed the company to refund the purchase price and to pay Rs 10,000. It also directed that the order be complied with within 60 days.

Consumers facing grievances may contact their respective state consumer helplines (Chandigarh helpline: 1800-300-11-007) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.