Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 30
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH DISTRICT COMMISSION
Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President, Brij Mohan Sharma, Member
Ajay Malik – Appellant
Versus
Asics India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/AB1/44/CC/37/2021 | CC/37/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amarbir Dhaliwal, Jatin Bansal
For the Respondents: Puneet Kumar, Gaurav Bhardwaj
Failure of a service provider to honor an approved claim for a defective product constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, entitling the consumer to a refund and compensation.
Headnote:A consumer purchased branded running shoes which developed defects, specifically sole separation, within one month of purchase. Although the seller approved the claim for exchange, it failed to provide a replacement or a refund, leading to the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The primary issue is whether the failure to honor an approved claim for a defective product constitutes a deficiency in service. The court reasoned that the approval of the claim by the seller serves as an admission of the defect, and in the absence of any technical report to prove otherwise, the seller's subsequent denial of the defect is unsustainable. the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is accordingly partly allowed and the OP is directed as under :- (i) to refund the invoice price of the pair of shoes i.e. 6,499/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 30.8.2020 till the date of actual realization. (ii) to also pay 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused as well as litigation expenses.
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
U.T. CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. : CC/37/2021
Date of Institution : 18/01/2021
Date of Decision : 29/06/2026
Ajay Malik alias Ajay s/o Ram Pal Malik, r/o Flat No.103, Prince Apartment, E19, Near Gulab Udyan, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016.
... Complainant
V E R S U S
Asics India Pvt. Ltd. through its M.D/Director
Store Address : Elante Mall, Shop no.116, 1 st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh 160002.
Head Office : ASICS India Private Limited, 6 th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram, Haryana 122202.
…. Opposite Party
BEFORE:
SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU PRESIDENT
SHRI B.M. SHARMA MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Jatin Bansal, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Amarbir Dhaliwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Puneet Kumar, Advocate for OP
ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed the present consumer complaint pleading that on 30.8.2020 he visited the OP store and based on the representations of its employees/ executives, purchased certain articles, including a pair of running shoes, vide invoice (Annexure C-1). Though the market rate of the said pair of shoes was 12,999/- but after giving 50% discount, same was sold for 6,499/-. However, to the utter shock of the complainant, in the last week of September, he felt discomfort in his ankles and upon inspection he found that the sole was separated from the heel and other sides also the pasting/gel had gone off due to which he was left stranded on the road. The poor quality of shoes could have resulted in some serious injury or some serious mis-happening as the complainant daily walks/jogs on Panchkula to Chandigarh road. Thereafter, complainant sent the said shoes to the store of OP, upon which he was told that the claim had been approved. Since the OP did not have the same pair of shoes, complainant was told to buy something of the discounted value of 6,500/- and filled the exchange form (Annexure C-3). However, instead of exchanging the shoes, OP directed the complainant to take a credit voucher for the purchase amount. Complainant repeatedly requested the OP to replace the shoes with a similar model or to refund the paid amount but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking replacement of the shoes or refund of the amount paid alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
In its written version, OP admitted that the complainant visited its store on 30.8.2020 and purchased certain articles. It is also admitted that the complainant again visited the same store on 12.10.2020 complaining about manufacturing defect in one of the items purchased namely GEL-QUANTUM 360 SHIFT MX and the OP duly addressed the same by offering to exchange the shoes as a humble gesture. Approval of the claim was duly intimated to the complainant but instead of accepting the same, he started raising demand for illegal sum from the OP and chose to file the instant consumer complaint. It is denied that serious injury could have been caused to the complainant due to poor quality of shoes. It is averred that after technical analysis of the shoes the same was not found to have any manufacturing defect as alleged. It is also denied that the OP dictated the complainant to take a credit voucher for the purchase amount. Remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
In replication, complainant controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own.
Parties led evidence in support of their case.
We have heard the learned Counsels for the parti
