The Haridwar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that footwear manufacturers cannot refuse product returns or refunds simply because a customer wore the shoes to determine if they were defective. Finding footwear brand Red Chief guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the commission ordered the company to either replace a defective pair of shoes or issue a full refund, alongside financial compensation to the buyer.
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Commission President Ranjna Goyal and members Amaresh Rawat and Gagan Kumar Gupta on June 27. The panel instructed the company to replace the damaged shoes with a new pair of equal value or refund Rs 2,009 within 45 days. Red Chief was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 for mental harassment and Rs 2,000 in litigation costs. Failure to pay within the stipulated period will attract an annual interest rate of eight percent calculated from the date the complaint was filed.
Testing Essential To Identify Product Flaws
Addressing the company’s defense that the shoes had already been used, the commission noted that reasonable use is necessary for a consumer to evaluate whether a product is flawed. The bench stated that when a defect becomes apparent shortly after purchase, a business cannot decline a return or refund on the sole ground that the item was worn.
The forum also highlighted that Red Chief provided no expert evaluation or technical evidence to substantiate its assertion that the damage was caused accidentally by the user rather than resulting from a manufacturing defect.
Sequence Of The Dispute
The case stems from a purchase made on February 26, 2025, when a consumer bought a pair of Red Chief shoes through Amazon for Rs 2,009 after viewing product advertisements. The shoes were delivered on March 4, but the buyer found them to be of poor quality, and the footwear tore within a month of normal use.
When the customer attempted to initiate a return on March 6, 2025, the delivery representative refused to accept the item because it had been worn. Subsequent refund requests sent to the company via email were rejected, with Red Chief maintaining that the footwear suffered accidental damage after purchase. After receiving no response to a legal notice, the buyer filed a complaint with the consumer commission and presented the damaged shoes as physical evidence.
Company Defense Rejected By Panel
In its response to the forum, Red Chief acknowledged the online order but denied that the footwear contained manufacturing defects, citing its established reputation for quality products. The company argued that the buyer violated return guidelines by using the shoes prior to requesting a refund and failed to provide photographic proof of initial defects.
The consumer commission dismissed the company’s arguments, finding that case records confirmed the buyer had promptly reported the quality issues on the official website. The panel concluded that refusing to honor valid return claims without supporting proof of accidental damage constitutes both a service deficiency and an unfair trade practice.
