The South West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum observed that when south Delhi resident Anantmala Potdar had handed over the defective football shoes on August 23, 2009, Puma had assured her that the footwear would be replaced or repaired within 10 working days.
"It is only on September 26, 2009 she was told that a pair of shoes of the same model were not available and she could get shoes of some other model. By this time more than 30 days had passed from the date of customer claim lodged with opposite party (Puma franchisee) on August 23, 2009 which constitutes deficiency-in-service on the part of opposite party.
"We, therefore, allow the complaint and direct opposite party and Puma Sports India Pvt Ltd, jointly or severally, to refund Rs 2,999, value of the shoes and to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for harassment and cost of litigation," the bench presided by Narendra Kumar.
The forum's order came on Potdar's plea alleging that the football shoes she had bought for Rs 2,999 from Puma were defective as one of its spikes fell off within 15 days of purchase.
She had handed over the shoes, which came with a three- month warranty, for repair or replacement but after several days and repeated calls, no response was received from Puma, Potdar had said.
Puma, in its defence, had contended that it had offered a replacement of same model and later gift vouchers of Rs 5,000 but she had refused the same.
The forum, however, rejected the contentions as "vague".