Ernakulam District Commission Holds BATA Showroom Liable For Selling Outdated Sandals

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased two pairs of sandals from the showroom of BATA India Ltd, intended for the Complainant's children's usage. However, on the very next day, the Complainant's son wore one of the pairs to school, only for the sole to break into two pieces within the school compound. Alleging that the sandals sold were significantly older than claimed by the showroom, the Complainant reported the incident. Upon approaching the showroom for a replacement, the Complainant was reportedly insulted and abused in front of other customers. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the showroom.

In response, the showroom contended that the complaint should be dismissed due to misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and argued that the showroom is not a legal entity. It argued that M/s. Bata India Limited should have been named, as per the details on the packaging and invoice, and the provisions of CPC. It highlighted its customer care policy, which guarantees the exchange of merchandise within 15 days of purchase, provided that the item was unused and was in its original state and packaging. It specified exceptions for articles purchased during sale periods and offered 100% replacement for major manufacturing defects within 90 days. Additionally, it stated that claims must be made within the specified period against manufacturing defects. Therefore, it argued that there was no deficiency of services on its part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant purchased a pair of footwear sized 25.4 cm from the showroom which was manufactured by Shyam Plastic Industries and marketed by Bata India Ltd. Further, ]the sandals purchased on 07.11.2021 were damaged by 09.11.2021, within 2 days of the purchase. The manufacturing date indicated on the sandals' box was 05/2018, rendering the sandals “3 years 6 months old” at the time of purchase. Therefore, the District Commission held the showroom liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling an outdated product to the Complainant.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the showroom to refund Rs. 314/- to the Complainant. Further, the District Commission directed the showroom to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.