Failure To Replace Damaged Shoes Despite Warranty, Kurukshetra District Commission Holds Skechers Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench of Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Ramesh Kumar (Member) and Neelam(Member) held Skechers liable for deficiency in services for selling a pair of shoes that started to deteriorate within a short span of time. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a pair of shoes manufactured by Skechers Retail for...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench of Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Ramesh Kumar (Member) and Neelam(Member) held Skechers liable for deficiency in services for selling a pair of shoes that started to deteriorate within a short span of time.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a pair of shoes manufactured by Skechers Retail for her father, at a cost of Rs. 5,599/-. Its advertisement claimed that the shoes were of very good quality, very comfortable, and came with a one-year warranty. It assured replacement or refund in case of defects. Initially, the shoes appeared to be in excellent condition, but after a few months, the shoes began to develop cracks in the lower shine portion and the colour started peeling off. The Complainant reported the poor quality of the shoes requesting a replacement. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (“Seller”), initially promised to replace the shoes in case of any defect but later delayed addressing the issue with various excuses. Despite multiple visits to the Seller and attempts to contact Skechers, the matter remained unresolved. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra, Haryana (“District Commission”) against Skechers and the Seller.
In response, Skechers contended that the Complainant never approached it and argued that Skechers and the Seller operate as separate legal entities running their business in India on a principal-to-principal basis. It claimed that no grievance was caused to the Complainant and argued that the complaint was baseless and should be dismissed.
The Seller didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the shoes purchased by the Complainant began to deteriorate within a short span of time. It noted that the shoes started showing cracks in the lower shine portion and the colour peeling off. As per the District Commission, this demonstrated a significant decline in quality shortly after the purchase. Therefore, Skechers was held liable for deficiency in services.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Skechers to refund the amount of Rs. 5,599/- to the Complainant, along with a 9% penal interest from the date of purchase and pay Rs. 5,500/- for costs.
Case Title: Supriti vs Skechers Retail India Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: Complaint No. 55 of 2022
Date of decision: 14.06.2024