Man given credit note instead of refund over defective shoes, wins Rs 15,000 payout

The District Consumer Commission of Haridwar directed an online footwear retailer to refund Rs 3,606 with interest after holding that forcing a customer to accept a time-bound credit note instead of a refund for the shoes with a size issue and poor quality amounted to deficiency in service.

A bench of president Gagan Kumar Gupta and members Ramesh Rawat and Ranjna Goyal has also awarded Rs 10,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs.

“The opposite party contended that the complainants had used the credit note to purchase shoes. However, the complainants maintained that they had neither consented to the issuance of the credit note nor used it. The burden of proving that the complainants had used the credit note lay on the opposite party,” the commission said on June 25.

The bench added that, however, the opposite party failed to place any such evidence on record, and consequently, it could not establish that the complainants had used the credit note.

The order noted that the very fact that the opposite party issued the credit note establishes that the two pairs of shoes purchased by the complainants were defective, and that the credit note was issued in acknowledgment of those defects.

Defective shoes, refund denied by retailer

This was a consumer dispute filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, against Red Chief (Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd.) over the company’s refusal to refund the price of defective shoes.

The complainant purchased two pairs of Red Chief shoes online: One for Rs 1,499 on June 6, 2025, and another for Rs 2,107 on June 8, 2025. The total cost he paid Rs 3,606. But after the delivery, the complainant found that the shoes had a size issue and were of poor quality.

Story continues below this ad

He returned the shoes within the permissible period, but instead of refunding the money, Red Chief issued a credit note valid for three months and refused to return the purchase amount. The complainant had mailed the company several times and followed up, but the company denied the refund, citing its internal policy.

No deficiency in service: Red Chief

The opposite party filed its written statement, in which it admitted that the complainant had purchased one pair of shoes for Rs 1,499 and another pair for Rs 2,107 online. However, it denied the remaining allegations made in the complaint.

The opposite party submitted that Red Chief is a reputed brand that manufactures and sells high-quality footwear and does not deal in inferior-quality products. It contended that the complainant had not specifically explained the reason for returning both pairs of shoes and had merely alleged poor quality while returning them through the agent.

According to the company, this showed that the complainant had deliberately filed the complaint to harass the company and extract money, even though there was no defect in the products. The company further stated that it had issued a credit note, and the complainant had used that credit note to purchase another pair of shoes, which the complainant had himself acknowledged in the complaint.

Story continues below this ad

The opposite party maintained that there was no deficiency in service on its part and that the complainant had not been compelled to purchase any other product. It stated that the credit note was valid for three months. As per the company’s exchange policy, if a customer is dissatisfied with a purchase, an exchange option is available within 15 days from the date of delivery, provided the product is returned in its original packaging, with the tags intact, and in unused condition.

Credit note acknowledged defects: Order

The records establish that the opposite party had acknowledged the size issues and quality defects in both pairs of shoes alleged by the complainant, as it issued the credit note on that basis.

Consequently, the documents on record substantiate the allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint.

The opposite party argued that the complainants had not clearly stated the reason for returning the shoes.

However, the complainants had specifically stated in their complaint that the shoes purchased by them had incorrect sizing and poor quality, due to which they returned both pairs to the opposite party.

Instead of the returned shoes, the opposite party issued a credit note equivalent to the value of the products.

This fact is corroborated by an email sent by the opposite party to the complainants.

The complainants’ assertion that they did not use the credit note appears to be credible.

Significance

This ruling strengthens consumer rights by holding that retailers cannot force customers to accept time-bound credit notes instead of refunds for defective or unsuitable products. It affirms that internal company policies cannot override statutory consumer protections, ensuring buyers receive fair remedies, including refunds and compensation, for deficient service and unfair trade practices.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Uttarakhand helpline: 1800-180-4188) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.