Consumer Forum Hears Plea Against Puma Store at Sarath City Capital Mall

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, has ruled on a complaint filed by a Hyderabad resident, Manish Kumar, against Puma Sports India Pvt Ltd and its retail store at Sarath City Capital Mall. The dispute arose following the company's decision to reject Kumar's warranty claim regarding a pair of shoes valued at ₹12,999.

Kumar purchased the shoes on October 2, 2025. Around two months after making the purchase, he observed peeling and noticeable damage affecting both the sole and the cover material of the footwear. Seeking redress under the product's warranty, Kumar visited the Puma store located inside Sarath City Capital Mall on December 6. During his visit, store representatives declined to honor the warranty, stating that the visible damage resulted merely from regular wear and tear.

Unsatisfied with the response from the retail staff, Kumar contacted Puma’s customer support team the following day, on December 7, providing photographs detailing the damaged condition of the shoes. Despite issuing multiple reminders to customer service, the issue remained unaddressed. Kumar then escalated the matter to the company’s Chief Executive Officer on December 21 and followed up once again on December 26.

When these direct communications failed to resolve the grievance, Kumar took the dispute to the National Consumer Helpline. According to the consumer commission's order, Puma maintained its stance and rejected the warranty claim once more, relying on its official replacement and exchange policy. In response, Kumar demanded that the company furnish a technical basis or a formal inspection report explaining the exact criteria used to evaluate and reject his claim.

In examining the grievance, the Ranga Reddy consumer forum scrutinized the specific terms and exclusions set out under Puma’s warranty policy. The policy details multiple conditions under which warranty protection does not apply, including improper care, misuse, accidents, neglect, issues with laces, induced tears, fading caused by the application of detergents, and complaints regarding products that have exceeded their designated warranty period.