The Rangareddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Telangana has directed a shoe manufacturer to pay Rs 20,999 to a customer after unlawfully rejecting his warranty claim without conducting a technical inspection. The commission held the company guilty of unfair trade practices and deficient service for summarily classifying visible product damage as ordinary wear and tear.
Under the ruling delivered on August 20 by a bench comprising President Chitneni Latha Kumar and members D Madhavi Latha and Kathyayani Khandavilli, the firm must refund the entire purchase price of Rs 12,999. In addition, the panel awarded Rs 5,000 as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant, alongside Rs 3,000 to cover litigation expenses, granting 45 days for full settlement. The buyer has been instructed to hand back the shoes immediately after the refund is disbursed.
Premature Damage And Disputed Rejection
The case originated from a grievance filed by a 45-year-old consumer who bought the footwear for Rs 12,999 in October 2025. Within two months of purchase, the shoes developed noticeable peeling and surface damage despite what the buyer described as careful and appropriate use.
The customer submitted that the company’s official website explicitly provided warranty coverage for products older than 14 days but under three months, provided the issue constituted a manufacturing flaw and the footwear was used properly. When he lodged a warranty request supported by photographic records, the firm dismissed the issue as standard wear and tear. Following unsuccessful attempts to have the claim reconsidered, the consumer approached the district commission, citing negligence and unfair business practices.
Lack Of Technical Inspection Flayed
The commission highlighted that the footwear brand failed to appear or contest the allegations despite being served formal notice. Consequently, the bench evaluated the grievance based on the uncontested submissions and photographic evidence presented by the complainant.
The panel observed that categorising a reported defect as routine wear and tear without producing any technical assessment or supporting material cannot justify repudiating a warranty claim. This was particularly unacceptable given that the defect surfaced within a very short span after purchase and was accompanied by photographic substantiation.
Concluding that requiring the buyer to undergo another round of warranty assessment would not serve as an effective remedy, the commission ruled that a monetary refund and damages were warranted to redress the company’s lapses.
