| Name of Complainant | |
| Date of Complaint | June 3, 2026 |
| Name(s) of companies complained against | Quantico Global India Pvt Ltd |
| Category of complaint | Consumables |
| Permanent link of complaint | Right click to copy link |
| Share your complaint on social media for wider reach | |
      |
|
I purchased a Sketra Smart Run Treadmill from the company’s official website on 5 May 2026 under a No Cost EMI payment option, and the product was delivered on 9 May 2026.
After delivery, the treadmill was only unpacked and placed in my room for inspection. The product has never been used, not even once, and remains in the same condition as delivered.
However, immediately after delivery, I discovered that due to the actual size and space occupied by the treadmill, it made the room largely inaccessible for normal movement and practical use, making the product unsuitable for my circumstances.
Further, I experienced a serious issue with the product’s folding functionality from the very beginning. A technician had to be called to inspect the treadmill. Shockingly, the technician had to open the joints and manually adjust the handle/folding mechanism just to make the treadmill functional. This is wholly unacceptable for a brand-new product that had not even been used once. A customer purchasing a new product cannot reasonably be expected to accept repair intervention on day one merely to make the product operational.
Given that the treadmill was completely unused and that there were functional concerns from the outset, I requested the company to accept a return and process a refund.
However, the company refused my request, citing a “No Return on EMI Orders” policy.
I wish to raise the following serious concerns:
Lack of clear disclosure / unfair trade practice:
At the time of purchase, the website prominently displayed:
7 Days Replacement Policy
Product replacement support
After-sales assistance
However, there was no clear, prominent, or explicit disclosure during the purchase journey or checkout process stating that products purchased under No Cost EMI would become completely non-returnable.
The company is now relying on an alleged restriction that appears only as a small clause buried within detailed policy text, which was not reasonably brought to the consumer’s attention before payment.
Such a material restriction that significantly impacts a consumer’s rights should have been clearly and prominently disclosed before purchase, especially at the payment stage where the EMI option is selected.
Defective / unsatisfactory product condition on delivery:
A newly delivered treadmill requiring technician intervention involving opening joints and manual adjustment to make it functional raises serious concerns regarding product quality and initial condition.
Product remains unused and returnable in original condition:
The treadmill has never been used and remains in original condition. My return request was made in good faith immediately after delivery and inspection.
I submit that the company’s refusal to accept return despite the product being unused, coupled with inadequate disclosure of restrictive return conditions, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
I therefore request appropriate intervention and relief, including:
Acceptance of product return
Full refund after deduction of any reasonable actual financial charges, if applicable (such as EMI processing/foreclosure charges)
Appropriate action against the company for failure to transparently disclose material purchase conditions
