Consumer Wins ₹7,000 After Shoe Brand Denies Refund for Used Defective Footwear
Consumer Wins ₹7,000 After Shoe Brand Denies Refund for Used Defective Footwear ( AI Image )
23 July, 2026: A consumer in Uttarakhand has won a legal battle against footwear brand Red Chief after a district consumer commission ruled that a refund or replacement cannot be denied merely because a product was used to identify a manufacturing defect.
The case involved a man who purchased a pair of Red Chief shoes for ₹2,009 through Amazon in February 2025. According to the complaint, the shoes were delivered in early March, but he found them to be of poor quality and allegedly defective soon after receiving them.
The buyer sought to return the shoes within days of delivery. However, the return was reportedly rejected by the delivery agent on the grounds that the shoes had already been used. The consumer later contacted the company directly, requesting a refund, but his request was declined after the company claimed the shoes had been accidentally damaged after use.
After receiving no satisfactory response, the consumer approached the Haridwar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
During the proceedings, the company maintained that Red Chief is a reputed footwear brand that does not manufacture inferior products. It argued that the shoes had no manufacturing defect and claimed the return request could not be accepted because the product had already been used, in line with Amazon’s return policy. The company also contended that the buyer had failed to produce evidence proving the alleged defect.
The commission, however, rejected the company’s arguments. It observed that consumers must use products such as footwear to determine whether they are defective and that a defect often becomes apparent only after limited use. It further noted that without examining the product through normal use, a consumer cannot reasonably identify manufacturing defects.
The commission also pointed out that the company failed to provide any expert opinion or technical evidence to support its claim that the damage was caused by accidental use rather than a manufacturing defect.
Based on the evidence on record, the consumer forum held the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It directed the company to either replace the defective shoes with a new pair of the same value or refund the purchase amount of ₹2,009 within 45 days.
In addition, the commission awarded ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹2,000 towards litigation expenses, taking the total relief granted to the consumer to ₹7,000. It further ordered that if the company fails to comply within the stipulated period, the awarded amount will carry an annual interest of 8%.
The ruling underscores that companies cannot reject legitimate refund or replacement claims solely because a consumer used a product to identify a defect. It also places the burden on manufacturers to substantiate claims of accidental damage with credible evidence before denying consumer claims.
