Thrissur District Commission Holds Doc & Mark Shoes And Its Dealer Liable For Destroying Evidence By Spoiling Shoes While Auditing

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held Doc and Mark shoes and its Dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for destroying the Complainant's shoes before the proceedings, which was seen as an attempt to destroy evidence and prevent the Complainant from providing defects.  

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a pair of shoes for Rs. 3,995/-, manufactured by Doc and Mark Shoes (“Manufacturer”) from its Dealer. He claimed to have used the shoes only once after purchasing them. Due to rain in May 2018, the Complainant did not use the shoes again and kept them securely in an almirah. However, when the Complainant took the shoes out after the rainy period, they were found to be torn at the top. Following the Dealer's instructions, the Complainant couriered the shoes back for replacement. 

When the Complainant later approached the Dealer, he was informed that the shoes appeared to be damaged by an animal attack and thus could not be replaced. The complainant disputed this claim, stating that the shoes were not subjected to any such attack and alleging that the product sold was of inferior quality. However, no resolution was provided. 

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, Kerala (“District Commission”). The Dealer and the Managing Director of the Manufacturer contended that the shoes were damaged owing to an animal attack. Further, as opposed to the Complainant's allegations, there was no rain in Kerala in May 2018. Moreover, the Complainant also refused to collect the shoes back after the replacement was denied. 

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the argument about the rain was not substantial, as rain can vary geographically. The key issue was whether the shoes were of inferior quality. The Dealer and the Managing Director of the Manufacturer admitted that the material was destroyed when it was being handled by their audit team. The District Commission held that they should have preserved the shoes, knowing litigation was possible. Destroying the shoes was seen as an attempt to spoil evidence, preventing the Complainant from proving the defects.

The District Commission concluded that the Dealer and the Managing Director acted in bad faith by destroying the shoes. This indicated a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Thus, the Complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price.

It was further noted that the Complainant experienced dissatisfaction, agony, and financial loss due to the Dealer's and the Manufacturer's actions. He also had to buy a new pair of shoes, incurring additional expenses. Therefore, the District Commission directed the Dealer and the Manufacturer to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainant.  

Case Title: Abbas M. vs Manager/Authorized Person, Doc & Mark and Anr. 

Case No. 634/19 filed on 14/11/2019.

Advocate for the Complainant: Agu. S. Padath 

Advocate for the Opposite Party: N.A.

Click Here To Read/Download Order