Back
Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders Asics India To Refund Customer For Selling Defective Sports Shoes
In a significant ruling, the , has held accountable for regarding the sale of a defective pair of running shoes. The bench, led by President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma, directed the multinational sports brand to refund the purchase price along with compensation for the physical and mental distress suffered by the consumer.
A Walk That Went Wrong
The dispute arose when the complainant, Ajay Malik, purchased a pair of Asics "GEL-QUANTUM 360 SHIFT MX" shoes for ₹6,499 on . Within a month of regular use, the shoes began to fall apart, with the soles separating from the heels. The complainant alleged that this poor construction left him stranded and posed a significant safety risk during his daily jogging routine. When the defect was reported to the retail outlet, the complaint was initially approved for exchange; however, the company subsequently failed to replace the product or issue a refund, proposing a credit voucher instead.
The Battle of Claims
During the proceedings, Asics India maintained that it had acted in good faith. The company argued that its offer to exchange the shoes was a "humble gesture" and that a technical examination revealed no manufacturing defects. They further accused the complainant of making unreasonable demands. Conversely, the complainant asserted that the company’s failure to provide a replacement or refund constituted an .
Judicial Scrutiny of Product Quality
The Commission dismissed the company's defense, noting that their claim of "no " was entirely unsupported by evidence. The tribunal pointed out that the company failed to submit any expert report, laboratory analysis, or technical documentation to substantiate their position.
The Court emphasized the reasonable expectations of a consumer when paying a premium for a branded product. According to the bench,
"a consumer purchasing the same after shelling heavy amount is entitled to expect reasonable durability and fitness for the purpose for which it was marketed."
Key Observations
The judgment highlighted several critical failures by the manufacturer:
*
"Had there been no defect whatsoever, there was no occasion for the OP to approve the claim of the complainant and process the same for exchange."
*
"Appearance of defects within a short span of about one month from the date of purchase indicates that the product sold was substandard."
*
"The failure of the OP to effectively redress the grievance of the complainant, even after approval of the claim, certainly amounts to
."
Final Order and Implications
The Commission ordered to refund the invoice price of ₹6,499 to the complainant, with interest calculated at 6% per annum from . Additionally, the company was directed to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for the litigation expenses and the harassment endured by the consumer. This order must be complied with within 60 days of receipt, serving as a reminder that premium brands are legally obligated to ensure that their products meet the standards of durability expected in the marketplace.
