Failure To Replace Defective Shoes Within Warranty Period, Lucknow District Commission Holds Liberty Shoes Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Lucknow bench of Amarjeet Tripathi (President) and Pratibha Singh (Member) held 'Liberty Shoes' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for its failure to honour its warranty commitment. Liberty Shoes also failed to initiate a replacement or refund the cost of defective shoes purchased by the consumer,...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Lucknow bench of Amarjeet Tripathi (President) and Pratibha Singh (Member) held 'Liberty Shoes' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for its failure to honour its warranty commitment. Liberty Shoes also failed to initiate a replacement or refund the cost of defective shoes purchased by the consumer, despite repeated requests and reminders.
Brief Facts:
Yogendra Kumar Dubey (“Complainant”) purchased a pair of black shoes for Rs. 2,999/- from 'Liberty Shoes' store. Liberty Shoes' manager assured him that the shoes came with a one-year warranty and that if any defect arose within the warranty period, he would either replace the shoes with a new pair or refund the full amount if the shoes were unavailable. However, shortly after the purchase, the shoes developed holes near the stitching. The Complainant lodged a complaint with Liberty Shoes. Liberty Shoes informed the Complainant about the unavailability of those shoes and promised to replace the Complainant's pair once they were back in stock.
After waiting for a month without any response, the Complainant contacted Liberty Shoes again, but no action was taken. Later, the Complainant sent a complaint via email to Liberty Shoes, which also went unanswered. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Lucknow (“District Commission”) against Liberty Shoes. Liberty Shoes didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the retail invoice confirmed that the shoes were bought from Liberty Shoes for Rs. 2,999/- plus Rs. 130/- GST, totalling Rs. 3,129/-. Further, it noted that the photographic evidence of the damaged shoes submitted by the Complainant also proved that there was actual damage.
The District Commission held that Liberty Shoes is a reputed national and international brand, and the Complainant purchased the shoes trusting its goodwill and warranty. Despite the warranty being valid, Liberty Shoes neglected to replace or repair the defective product. This deprived the Complainant of its use. Hence, the District Commission held Liberty Shoes liable for deficiency in service.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Liberty Shoes to initiate a refund of Rs. 3,129/-, along with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Case Title: Yogendra Kumar Dubey vs Liberty Shoes Ltd.
Case Number: 266/2024
Date of Judgment: 28.03.2025
