Gurgaon District Commission Holds BATA Liable For Sale Of Defective Shoes And Failure To Replace

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held BATA footwear liable for selling defective shoes and subsequently, failing to replace it before the proceedings started. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased a pair of Bata shoes from the Bata Store in DLF City, Gurugram for Rs. 3,199/-, after availing of a discount. However, within 15 days of purchase, the shoes developed cracks, faded in certain areas, and the sole tore apart. Subsequently, the Complainant contacted Bata's customer care service and stated the issues. Despite communication efforts, the problems persisted, and Bata failed to replace the defective shoes. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Bata. Bata contended that it tried to settle the dispute with the Complainant thrice. However, the Complainant refused to settle the claim. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission held that Bata failed to provide any substantial evidence to refute the authenticity of the documents submitted by the Complainant. Further, during the proceedings, the authorized representative of Bata expressed his willingness to refund the amount of Rs. 3,199/-, the cost of the defective Bata shoes, in an attempt to resolve the matter. However, the Complainant declined this offer, insisting on compensation for the inconvenience caused due to the deficiency in service. Despite subsequent offers from the Bata's representative, including a final offer of Rs. 7,000/-, the District Commission noted that the Complainant refused to settle. The District Commission held that an offer of settlement on the part of Bata through its authorized representative, also, suo-moto (on its own), impliedly denotes that there did occur deficiency in service on the part of the Bata. Therefore, the District Commission held Bata liable for deficiency in services. Consequently, the District Commission directed Bata to refund the amount of Rs. 3,199/- to the Complainant for the defective shoes, along with 9% interest per annum from the date of purchase, starting from August 31, 2021, until realization. Additionally, Bata was directed to a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant for harassment and mental agony, along with litigation expenses totalling Rs. 11,000/-.Case Title: Bhagat Singh vs Bata and Anr. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Gurgaon District Commission Holds BATA Liable For Sale Of Defective Shoes And Failure To Replace

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Gurgaon District Commission Holds BATA Liable For Sale Of Defective Shoes And Failure To Replace

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers