CHANDIGARH: A customer who found his Rs 10,999 Columbia jacket torn underneath the arm on its first use has won a consumer dispute against the brand’s Elante Mall store, with the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing it to refund the purchase price and pay Rs 20,000 as compensation and litigation costs.The commission held that the store could not blame the customer for the damage without producing an independent inspection report or technical assessment to establish that it was caused by mishandling.In its November 4 order, commission president Amrinder Singh Sidhu and member Brij Mohan Sharma observed that the tear was underneath the arm, at an inconspicuous location that could not reasonably have been detected during an ordinary inspection at the time of purchase.The bench also rejected the store’s reliance on the principle of ‘buyer beware’, observing that it did not apply to consumers in the same manner because the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, was a benevolent and welfare legislation.Jacket found torn on first useAccording to the complaint, Sauhard, a resident of Sector 11, purchased three jackets from the Columbia store at Elante Mall on December 25, 2025, for a total of Rs 26,997. One of the jackets, priced at Rs 10,999, was found torn underneath the arm when he wore it for the first time on January 1, 2026.The complainant said the tear was at an inconspicuous location and could not have been detected at the time of purchase. He subsequently approached the store through email on January 10 and furnished the requisite details and documents on January 11.Although the store initially informed him on January 12 that the matter had been escalated for review, it rejected his complaint on January 14, alleging that the damage had occurred due to his fault and that no manufacturing defect was found.The complainant alleged that no proper physical inspection of the jacket was conducted in his presence. The store also failed to provide any inspection report, photographs or technical assessment to substantiate its findings.Despite repeated requests and follow-ups, he did not receive a satisfactory resolution. He subsequently sent a legal notice to the store through email and Speed Post on January 15, but received no response.He approached the consumer commission, seeking replacement of the defective jacket or a refund of Rs 10,999 along with interest. He also sought compensation for mental agony and harassment and reimbursement of litigation expenses.Store says customer had opportunity to inspect jacketIn its written response, the store denied the allegations and argued that the complainant had been given an adequate opportunity to inspect and try the product before purchasing it. It said he had accepted the jacket without raising any objection or complaint.The store further claimed that the complainant approached it on January 1, around 15 days after the purchase, regarding the tear and initially sought assistance for its repair, representing that the damage had occurred from his end.It contended that the complainant had failed to produce any evidence establishing that the damage existed at the time of purchase or was attributable to a manufacturing defect. The store denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and sought dismissal of the complaint.Commission finds deficiency in serviceAfter hearing both sides, the commission observed that the tear was located underneath the arm, at a relatively inconspicuous portion of the jacket. Therefore, the store’s argument that the customer had an opportunity to inspect the product before purchasing it could not, by itself, absolve it of liability.The bench noted that despite alleging that the damage was caused by external usage or mishandling, the store had failed to place on record any independent inspection report, technical assessment or other convincing material establishing the cause of the tear.It observed that merely recording an internal opinion attributing the damage to the customer could not be treated as conclusive proof, particularly when the store had neither established the basis of its assessment nor produced expert evidence in support of it.The commission further noted that the store had failed to provide a reasoned technical assessment supported by relevant material and had rejected the complaint solely on the basis of its internal findings.Holding that the store had failed to establish that the damage was attributable to the complainant or that the product supplied was of the requisite quality and standard, the bench concluded that it had failed to redress the customer’s genuine grievance.The commission held the store guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, observing that its actions had caused harassment to the complainant.It directed the store to refund Rs 10,999, the price of the defective jacket, and pay an additional Rs 20,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
