A district consumer commission has directed Louis Vuitton India Retail Pvt Ltd to return a pair of shoes purchased by a buyer which he had left with them and amicably work out a solution to the satisfaction of both parties. The buyer had returned the shoes as they were not comfortable but Louis deemed it unexchangeable.
The order was passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) on a complaint by Malad resident Jawed Iqbal Azam against Louis Vuitton India functioning out of Taj Mahal Palace, Colaba. Azam had also made the luxury brand's India head office based in Bengaluru and its directors party to the case. The directives of the DCDRC were only for Colaba stores.
“Unsellable condition”
According to the complaint, Azam purchased a pair of shoes worth Rs79,500 from the Colaba outlet on January 26, 2021. He had asked the salesperson to give him a comfortable pair but since he was running late for his flight, tried them only after reaching the airport. The shoes were not comfortable, however, and left him with a 'shoe bite'. Azam purchased another pair of shoes after reaching his destination and kept the Louis Vuitton pair safe and unused till returning it to the Colaba showroom. He eventually returned the pair on January 31, 2021, but the salesperson refused to accept it saying it was in an “unsellable condition”.
Since the shoes were covered by the warranty period, Azam left the pair with the store manager and later sought a change of size or a refund. However, the store replied saying the shoes were not exchangeable. On approaching the Commission, an ex-parte order came to be passed as Louis Vuitton did not appear.
During the hearing, the DCDRC observed that the salesperson had explained to the complainant about the quality and comfort of the shoes, and as per his own admission, he did not try it out because he was getting late and that the discomfort could have been avoided. The commission said the responsibility to ensure correct fitting was as much of the complainant as of the seller and that the latter cannot be blamed.
It said, however, that since Louis Vuitton did not appear despite the notice, the averments had gone unchallenged and since the shoes were left at the store, they should be returned and an amicable solution with the complainant.
