Archive · 29 Sep 2026
Telangana Commission Awards Rs 21,000 Over Damaged Shoes
A man bought a pair of shoes for Rs 12,999.
The shoes began peeling and getting damaged after about two months.
He asked the company to repair or replace them under the warranty.
The company refused, saying the damage was caused by normal use.
The consumer commission said the company did not show technical evidence to prove that claim.
It also noted that the company did not properly contest the complaint.
The commission ordered the company to refund the shoe price.
It also awarded money for the man’s inconvenience and legal costs.
Altogether, the ordered payments amounted to Rs 20,999.
A man bought shoes worth Rs 12,999 in October 2025 and reported visible peeling and damage within two months.
The shoe company rejected his warranty claim, describing the damage as “regular wear and tear.”
The Rangareddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said the company provided no technical inspection report supporting that explanation.
The commission found the company deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practice.
The company was ordered to refund Rs 12,999, pay Rs 5,000 for mental agony and inconvenience, and Rs 3,000 in litigation costs.
- Who
- A 45-year-old man and the unnamed shoe company involved in his warranty claim.
- What
- The Rangareddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the company to pay Rs 20,999 after rejecting the man’s warranty claim was found unjustified.
- When
- The shoes were purchased in October 2025, and the defects appeared within two months; the commission’s order was reported as dated August 20.
- Where
- The case was decided by the Rangareddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Telangana.
- Why
- The commission found that the company rejected the warranty claim as “regular wear and tear” without providing technical evidence or sufficient justification.
Consumer’s position
Company’s position
Cause of the damage
Consumer’s position
The man said the shoes developed visible defects during careful and appropriate use, indicating a manufacturing defect covered by the warranty.
Company’s position
The company characterized the damage as “regular wear and tear.”
Evidence for the warranty decision
Consumer’s position
The man supported his claim with photographs and argued that the shoes were within the warranty period.
Company’s position
The company did not provide a technical inspection report or sufficient contrary evidence, according to the commission.
Appropriate remedy
Consumer’s position
The man sought replacement of the shoes or a refund of Rs 12,999 after his warranty request was rejected.
Company’s position
The company did not contest the complaint despite receiving notice; the commission therefore ordered a refund rather than another warranty assessment.
- Shoe price
- Rs 12,999
- Reported defect
- Visible peeling and damage within two months
- Company’s reason for rejection
- “Regular wear and tear”
- Refund ordered
- Rs 12,999
- Compensation
- Rs 5,000 for mental agony and inconvenience
- Litigation costs
- Rs 3,000
- Total ordered payment
- Rs 20,999, payable within 45 days