![\"\"](\"https:\/\/trak.in\/stories\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Screenshot-2026-10-01-at-9.05.10-AM-1024x587.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe Rangareddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found the company deficient in service and guilty of an unfair trade practice, directing it to pay nearly Rs 21,000 to the customer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shoes Developed Problems Within Two Months<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The 45-year-old consumer purchased the shoes in October 2025 for Rs 12,999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to his complaint, the footwear developed visible peeling and other damage within two months despite being used carefully and appropriately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The customer approached the company seeking a warranty claim, pointing out that the product was still within the company’s specified warranty period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the company rejected the claim, describing the damage as “regular wear and tear”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Company Failed To Provide Technical Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The consumer then approached the district commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A key issue before the commission was whether the company had sufficient evidence to classify the damage as normal wear and tear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The commission noted that the company did not provide a technical inspection report or other supporting material to substantiate its claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The consumer, on the other hand, had submitted photographs showing the condition of the shoes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The commission observed that simply describing a defect as regular wear and tear, without supporting technical evidence, was not sufficient to justify rejection of the warranty claim, particularly when the problem had appeared within a short period after purchase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Company Did Not Properly Contest The Complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The commission also noted that despite receiving notice, the company failed to properly contest the complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the documents submitted by the consumer and the absence of sufficient contrary evidence, the commission concluded that the warranty claim had been rejected without adequate justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It held that the company had not only provided deficient service but had also resorted to an unfair trade practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Customer Gets Rs 20,999<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The commission decided that asking the company to conduct another warranty assessment at this stage would not provide an effective remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead, it ordered the company to refund the full purchase price of Rs 12,999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The consumer was also awarded Rs 5,000 for mental agony and inconvenience caused by the handling and rejection of his warranty claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another Rs 3,000 was awarded towards litigation costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total amount comes to Rs 20,999, or almost Rs 21,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The customer has been directed to return the shoes to the company after receiving the refund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n