The altered kurta returned without a bill: policy versus liability
Meena bought a cotton kurta for ₹1,299 from a Bhiwani garment store and paid by card. At the same visit the store's own tailor took in the waist seam for ₹150, and that charge is noted on the bill. Nine days later she returns: the side seam has opened. She has no bill - she says it went through the wash - but her card statement shows both the ₹1,299 and the ₹150. The printed policy at the counter reads 'exchange within 7 days with original bill; altered garments are not returnable'. The owner, Renu, is at the counter. The tailor, when asked, admits he stitched that seam and says the overlock may have missed. Two other customers are browsing within earshot. Meena is calm but says she will post photos in the local WhatsApp group. Renu's monthly sales are ₹4.2 lakh and she has never written down a complaint process.
1. Decide what Renu should offer Meena. Justify the decision using the policy, the evidence available and the commercial cost of each option.
Read the worked answer
Separate two questions. Is the garment returnable under the printed policy, and is the store liable for the defect? They are not the same.
Policy analysis. The clause 'altered garments are not returnable' protects the store when a customer has taken the garment elsewhere or asked for a fit change and then changed her mind. It does not protect the store from its own stitching. The tailor has admitted the fault and the ₹150 alteration is the store's own paid service - so the defect is a service defect, not a customer misuse.
Evidence. No bill is not fatal. The card statement proves purchase and amount, and the store's own duplicate bill or alteration register identifies the item and the job. A reasonable manager verifies rather than refuses.
Cost the options. Refusing saves ₹1,299 but risks losing a customer worth perhaps ₹6,000 a year at four visits of ₹1,500, plus a public post read by neighbours, plus the two customers watching. A free repair costs almost nothing but the seam has already failed once, so trust stays low. A full refund with the garment taken back costs ₹1,299 and closes the matter cleanly.
Recommendation: refund the purchase price and the alteration charge, take the garment back, and do not attach a condition about the WhatsApp post.
2. How should Renu handle the two customers who are listening, and Meena's threat to post online? What must she avoid doing?
Read the worked answer
- Change the setting, not the answer. Invite Meena to the side counter or the back office. The reason is not to hide the complaint but because an argument at the counter makes every watching customer wonder whether their own purchase is safe.
- Say one clear sentence in front of the others - 'We will sort this out, please come with me' - and leave it there. That is enough for the audience.
- Do not recite policy loudly. 'No bill, no refund' as an opening line in public converts a garment problem into a reputation problem. It is also wrong here, because the store's own alteration caused the fault.
- Do not blame the tailor in front of anyone. It protects nothing and destroys staff confidence.
- Do not ask her to delete the post as a condition of the refund. That looks like hush money and, if repeated publicly, damages the store more than the original complaint.
- On the post itself: acknowledge that posting is her right, ask her to mention how it was resolved, and reply once publicly and factually in the store's name if it goes up. A complaint handled well in public often earns more trust than no complaint at all.
3. Name one written process change that would stop this dispute from becoming unwinnable next time.
Read the worked answer
An alteration job card, with a stitching warranty.
Every alteration generates a small card: bill number, garment description, alteration done, tailor's initials, date, and a stated warranty such as 'stitching guaranteed for 15 days'. One copy goes with the customer, one stays in a file.
Why this specific fix works:
- It solves the evidence problem. In this case the store could identify the garment only because a ₹150 charge happened to be on the bill. A job card makes that routine.
- It removes the argument about whether the fault is the customer's or the tailor's, because the tailor's initials and the warranty period are recorded.
- It gives staff a script - 'this is covered for 15 days' - instead of a policy they must interpret under pressure.
Supporting line: capture the customer's mobile number at billing so a no-bill return can be traced against the sale record. Also keep a one-page complaint register: date, customer, issue, action, who approved it. That register is what turns a series of one-off fights into a policy Renu can actually apply consistently.