Faulty transaction: Hush Puppies served notice on defective shoes

The sales manager had promised the petitioner to replace the shoes but instead humiliated him.


Our Correspondent April 23, 2013
The sales manager of Hush Puppies was issued a notice by a consumer court in a suit seeking Rs 100,000 as damages. PHOTO: FILE

LAHORE:


A consumer court issued a notice to a sales manager of Hush Puppies for May 14 in a suit seeking damages of Rs100,000 for allegedly selling the petitioner a defective article.


Petitioner Yousaf Shahzad submitted that he purchased a pair of shoes branded “Fighter Black Colour” for Rs2,795  on December 19, 2012.

The shoes, he said, broke after a few days.

He contacted the shop’s sales manager Muhammad Rashid who had, Shahzad said, promised him to replace the shoes with new ones on February 15.

Shahzad said he visited the respondent on the agreed date but was requested to come back after a few days.

When he went back, Shahzad said, the manager of the store did not replace the shoes and instead humiliated him and issued threats.

He prayed the court to direct the respondent to replace the shoes with new ones and pay Rs100,000 for causing mental agony.

Talking to The Express Tribune, Hush Puppies sales manager Muhammad Rashid said he had only assumed charge a few days back and had forwarded the court’s notice to the Hush Puppies’ head office.

Rashid said he was unaware about the matter and said the sales manager who had probably made the transaction had left the job.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 24th, 2013.

COMMENTS (3)

citizen | 11 years ago | Reply

Thumbs up ! it is high time consumers are granted swift justice . Enough of exploitation of masses by businessmen

ci | 11 years ago | Reply

Thumbs up i must say . It is high time , voice of consumers is heard and justice is provided swiftly . enough unfair unjust treatment of business men with consumers .

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ