- Home
- /
- Consumer Cases
- /
- Nike Shoe Sole Puncture, Shimla...
Nike Shoe Sole Puncture, Shimla Consumer Commission Orders Refund And Compensation
Apoorva Pandita
23 Nov 2023 4:00 PM GMT
The Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising of Dr. Baldev Singh as president and Mr. Jagdev Singh Raitka as member allowed a complaint against a Nike Showroom. The contention was that the shoes purchased from the showroom had a manufacturing defect causing the sole to puncture within three months, falling within the warranty period. Despite the consumer's...
The Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising of Dr. Baldev Singh as president and Mr. Jagdev Singh Raitka as member allowed a complaint against a Nike Showroom. The contention was that the shoes purchased from the showroom had a manufacturing defect causing the sole to puncture within three months, falling within the warranty period. Despite the consumer's efforts to address the issue and claim the warranty, the showroom refused to offer any assistance.
The Commission allowed the complaint, holding the Nike showroom (Opposite Party) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the Commission directed the showroom to refund the purchase amount of Rs.17,595/- to the complainant. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. Further, if necessary, the showroom had to collect the faulty product at its own expense.
Brief Facts
Mr. Nek Ram Shyam (Complainant) filed a complaint against a Nike Showroom (Opposite Party) due to problems with a pair of Nike Shoes that he bought for Rs.17,595/- on 17th September 2021. As per the complaint, even though Shyam had lost the cash memo, the payment was made through his Punjab National Bank branch in Shimla. The showroom assured him of high-quality shoes with a one-year warranty. However, within three months of purchase, the shoes developed problems due to a manufacturing defect. The sole of the shoes got punctured while still under warranty. Shyam's son visited the showroom, showing them pictures of the defective shoes, but the showroom rejected their request for assistance. Consequently, Nek Ram Shyam filed a consumer complaint claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Observations of the Commission
After considering the evidence on record, the Commission acknowledged that despite attempts by Complainant to address the issue at the Nike Showroom, they refused to replace the shoes or refund the amount. The commission noted that the Nike Showroom did not contest the complaint, and therefore proceeded ex-parte.
As a result, the commission allowed the consumer claim, holding the Nike Showroom liable for deficient service and unfair trade practices. They directed the showroom to refund Rs.17,595/- to the complainant and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony. Additionally, the showroom was ordered to cover Rs.5,000/- litigation costs and collect the faulty product at their expense, if necessary.
Case Title: Nek Ram Shyam vs. Nike Showroom
Counsel for the Complainant: Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party: Ex-parte
