Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Exploitation and Redressal of A Consumer by Christian Louboutin
The Exploitation and Redressal of A Consumer by Christian Louboutin
Christian Louboutin
Introduction
In 2020, a high-profile case involving the famous luxury shoe brand Christian Louboutin
highlighted the consumer protection framework in India. The case involved a consumer
named Sangeeta Malhotra, who faced significant exploitation after purchasing a pair of
expensive designer shoes that turned out to be defective. The legal battle and its resolution
underscored the importance of consumer rights and the role of legal institutions in upholding
them.
The Incident
The Exploitation
1. Right to Safety: Sangeeta’s safety was at risk as the shoes’ defective nature could cause
falls and injuries.
2. Right to Information: The brand failed to provide accurate information about the
product's durability and quality.
3. Right to Choose: Sangeeta’s right to choose a high-quality product was compromised due
to the defective shoes.
4. Right to Redressal: Christian Louboutin’s initial refusal to acknowledge the defect or
offer compensation violated her right to redressal.
5. Right to Consumer Education: Sangeeta was not informed about how to address issues
related to product defects effectively.
Legal Action and Institutional Support
After the brand refused to replace the shoes or offer a refund, Sangeeta decided to take legal
action. She filed a complaint with the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC).
1. Sangeeta lodged a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, presenting
evidence including photographs of the defective shoes, purchase receipts, and correspondence
with the brand.
2. The CDRC accepted the case, focusing on the brand's accountability and adherence to
quality standards.
3. The CDRC ordered an investigation into the defect. An expert inspection confirmed that
the shoes did not meet the promised quality standards.
4. Christian Louboutin argued that the damage could be due to improper use. However,
Sangeeta provided evidence of proper care and maintenance of the shoes.
5. The CDRC ruled in Sangeeta’s favor, highlighting the brand’s failure to ensure product
quality and customer satisfaction.
1. The CDRC awarded Sangeeta a full refund of INR 1.5 lakhs and an additional INR 50,000
for mental harassment and legal expenses.
2. The brand was ordered to replace the defective shoes with a new pair.
3. Christian Louboutin was instructed to issue a public apology, committing to better quality
control and customer service.
4. The case led to stricter quality control measures and better customer service policies within
the brand’s Indian outlets.
Conclusion
The case of Sangeeta Malhotra against Christian Louboutin serves as a compelling example
of how legal institutions in India safeguard consumer rights. It underscores the necessity for
consumers to be aware of their rights and for brands to maintain high standards of quality and
transparency. This landmark case not only ensured justice for Sangeeta but also prompted
significant policy changes to protect future consumers.
Survey Conducted
Just write about your result in paragraph form and then stick the pie charts.