The Case of Defective Sandals: Consumer Compensation and Company Accountability

A pair of sandals breaking during a wedding ceremony sounds like a minor inconvenience. But when the break causes public embarrassment at one of the most important social events in Indian culture, it becomes a legitimate consumer rights issue. This is exactly what happened in a case that came before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, where a consumer’s sandals gave way mid-ceremony, leading to a legal dispute that ended with the manufacturer being directed to either refund the purchase price or replace the product – along with additional compensation for the mental distress caused. The case is a compact but powerful illustration of how Indian consumer law works in practice, even for everyday goods like footwear.

What happened: the facts of the case 🔗

The consumer had purchased a pair of sandals from a manufacturer and wore them to a wedding ceremony. During the event, the sandals broke – an incident that caused considerable embarrassment and inconvenience in a very public social setting. The consumer approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, arguing that the sandals were defective and that the manufacturer was liable for the distress caused.

The Commission agreed. It directed the manufacturer to either refund the price paid for the sandals or replace them with a defect-free pair. Beyond that, it went a step further and awarded additional compensation to the consumer for the embarrassment and inconvenience suffered during the wedding. This two-part remedy – product relief plus compensation for mental agony – reflects a well-established principle in Indian consumer law: when a defective product causes distress beyond mere financial loss, the law recognises that harm too.

What makes something a “defect” under Indian law? 🔗

The legal basis for this kind of complaint lies in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Under Section 2(10) of the Act, a “defect” is defined as any fault, imperfection, or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity, or standard of goods – whether that standard is set by law, by a contract, or by the claims the trader makes about the product. In short, if a product fails to meet what it is reasonably expected to do, it is defective.

Sandals are manufactured to be worn. If they break during normal use – especially shortly after purchase – that failure directly falls within this definition. The consumer does not need to prove a complicated manufacturing process went wrong. The fact that the product failed at its basic purpose is sufficient to establish a defect.

The concept of “harm” under the 2019 Act 🔗

One of the significant additions in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 compared to its predecessor is the expanded definition of “harm.” The Act now explicitly includes mental agony and emotional distress arising out of a defective product within the scope of compensable harm. This is why the Commission in the sandal case did not limit its order to a refund or replacement alone. The embarrassment of having footwear fail publicly at a wedding – a deeply significant occasion in Indian society – was treated as a genuine, compensable injury.

The remedies available: refund, replace, or compensate 🔗

When a Consumer Commission finds that goods are defective, it has a clear range of remedies it can order. As laid out under the Consumer Protection Act and detailed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, these include directing the manufacturer or seller to remove the defect, replace the goods with a defect-free equivalent, refund the purchase price, or pay compensation for loss or injury caused by negligence.

In the sandal case, the Commission gave the manufacturer a choice between refund and replacement – a practical approach that gives the company flexibility while ensuring the consumer is made whole. The additional compensation awarded on top of this is for the non-financial harm: the social embarrassment and personal inconvenience that came from a product failure in a public setting.

Who is liable – the manufacturer, the seller, or both? 🔗

Under Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a product manufacturer can be held liable for harm caused by a defective product in various circumstances, including when the product deviates from standard quality requirements or fails to conform to what the manufacturer has claimed or implied about it. Both manufacturers and sellers can potentially be pulled into a complaint, depending on the facts. In cases involving manufacturing defects – like a sandal breaking during ordinary use – the manufacturer is the primary party held accountable.

Why this case matters beyond the price of a pair of sandals 🔗

At first glance, a dispute over footwear might seem trivial. But this case carries a message that goes well beyond the cost of the sandals. A few key lessons stand out.

No product is too small to attract consumer protection 🔗

Indian consumer law applies to all goods, irrespective of their price or type. Whether it is an expensive car or an inexpensive pair of sandals, the standard is the same: the product must be fit for its intended purpose. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not draw a minimum threshold for the value of goods when determining whether a defect exists. A consumer who buys a modest product has exactly the same legal protections as one who buys a premium one.

Context of use matters when assessing harm 🔗

The Commission’s decision to award compensation specifically for the embarrassment caused at a wedding reflects an important judicial approach: the context in which a product is used is relevant to understanding the harm caused when it fails. Using footwear at a wedding, a formal and socially significant occasion, made the failure more consequential than it might have been in a less public setting. Consumer Commissions are empowered to take these contextual factors into account when determining compensation.

Manufacturers must ensure product quality regardless of price point 🔗

For businesses, this judgment serves as a reminder that quality obligations are not optional or limited to premium products. Product liability under the 2019 Act means that a manufacturer is responsible for the harm its products cause when they are defective. A footwear company cannot argue that, because the price of the sandals was low, the standard of durability expected from them should also be low. The standard is what an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect.

How a consumer can approach a similar situation 🔗

If you find yourself in a comparable situation – a product failing during use and causing you distress – the process to seek redress is more accessible than many people realise. The first step is to send a written notice to the seller or manufacturer, describing the defect, the harm caused, and the remedy you are seeking. If this does not result in a satisfactory response, you can file a complaint with the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Complaints for claims up to ₹50 lakh are filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. For claims between ₹50 lakh and ₹2 crore, the matter goes to the State Commission, and for claims above ₹2 crore, to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. As per the established consumer court procedure, you can also file complaints online through the e-Daakhil portal, which has simplified the process significantly. There is a two-year limitation period from the date the cause of action arises, so it is important not to delay.

When filing your complaint, keep your purchase receipt, any photographs of the defect, and a record of all communications with the seller. For a defective product claim, these documents form the backbone of your case. In terms of relief, you can simultaneously ask for a refund or replacement and also claim compensation for mental agony and inconvenience – exactly the twin remedies the Commission awarded in the sandal case.

The broader takeaway: embarrassment is a cognisable loss 🔗

Perhaps the most legally interesting aspect of this case is the recognition that public embarrassment caused by a defective product is not just a personal grievance – it is a legally acknowledged harm. Indian consumer law, particularly after the 2019 amendments, is built on the premise that a consumer’s mental and emotional wellbeing is part of the equation, not an afterthought. When a product fails at a moment that matters – a wedding, a graduation, a job interview – the distress caused by that failure does not disappear just because the financial value of the product is low.

This also aligns with how consumer courts across India have consistently held that manufacturers and sellers cannot escape liability by merely offering to repair or replace a product if the harm has already been done. Compensation for mental distress is a separate head of relief, and the Commission has the power to award it independently.

What do you think? If a product’s failure causes social embarrassment rather than physical or financial harm, should the compensation awarded reflect the severity of the occasion during which it occurred – or should a fixed standard apply regardless of context? And given how accessible Indian consumer courts have become through online filing, do you think more consumers should be stepping forward with everyday product complaints that they currently dismiss as too minor to pursue?

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47873513/
2. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/product-liability-laws-and-regulations/india
3. https://ncdrc.nic.in/
4. https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2022/01/product-liability-under-the-consumer-protection-act-2019-an-overview/
5. https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/consumer-protection-in-india
6. https://www.acmlegal.org/blog/understanding-product-liability-under-the-consumer-protection-act-2019/
7. https://cleartax.in/s/consumer-court
8. https://www.lawcurb.in/post/product-defect-case-studies-from-consumer-courts