The kurta that bled colour - a return without a bill
On a Saturday evening in a 1,200 sq ft organised family store in Siliguri, a customer returns a ₹1,299 cotton kurta set bought on Wednesday. She has no printed bill, the price tag has been cut off, and the kurta has visibly bled colour onto the white palazzo after one hand wash. The salesperson tells her loudly that "without bill and tag nothing can be done" and that the bleeding is "her washing mistake". Two other customers are watching. The store's written policy allows exchange within 7 days only with bill and tags for unused goods, and sends manufacturing-defect claims to the manager for inspection. The customer is raising her voice and threatening to post about the store. You are the supervisor on duty; the manager has left for the day and is reachable by phone. The cash counter behind you has a queue of eight people.
1. Describe, in order, what you would say and do in the next ten minutes, and explain why each step matters.
Read the worked answer
- Move the conversation away from the counter - a quiet corner or the staff seat, lower voice, offer water. Reason: an audience makes both sides defend a position; the queue and the two watching customers are hearing the store refuse a complaint, which is the most damaging part.
- Let her finish without interruption, then restate the complaint in my own words ("bought Wednesday, bled in the first wash, no bill"). Reason: acknowledgement is the step the salesperson skipped. Note that I apologise for the inconvenience, not for a defect I have not yet established.
- Do not repeat "no bill, no exchange" as a wall. Instead offer verification: UPI/card statement, loyalty mobile number, or a POS search for a ₹1,299 bill on Wednesday evening. Reason: the bill rule exists to stop fraudulent returns, not to punish a genuine buyer; verification does the same job as a bill.
- Examine the garment with her - is the bleed uniform across the panel (dye-fastness failure) or patchy (bleach or hot soak)? Read the care label and check whether any washing instruction was given at sale. Reason: this is the line between a manufacturing defect and misuse.
- Give a definite next step and time - manager's decision by phone tonight, or 11 am tomorrow, with a written acknowledgement slip and complaint number. Reason: certainty stops escalation better than any apology. I would not promise an exchange before inspection, and would not admit liability in writing.
2. The manager authorises an exchange. What should be recorded and escalated, and how would you decide whether this is one-off misuse or a batch defect?
Read the worked answer
Recording: complaint register entry with date, approximate purchase date, item code, MRP, batch/lot number printed on the piece, nature of complaint, the verification evidence used in place of the bill, the resolution given and the customer's contact. Keep or photograph the garment with her consent, and mark on the slip that the item is sent for quality inspection. Testing whether it is a batch problem: take two or three unsold pieces from the same lot and rub each with a damp white cloth. Fading on a damp rub is a genuine dye-fastness failure; clean cloth suggests the customer's wash was at fault. Read the care label - if it says machine wash hot or does not warn against soaking, the instructions themselves may be the defect. If the lot fails: stop sale of that lot immediately, quarantine it in a marked area, and raise a written complaint to the supplier/brand with the batch number, quoting the credit note. If other buyers of that lot can be traced through bills or loyalty records, a proactive exchange costs far less than a social-media pile-on. Inform the owner. If the lot passes: the exchange still stands as a goodwill decision within the manager's authority, but the register entry and the customer conversation must make clear it was goodwill, not an admission - otherwise the same claim becomes the standard for every return.
3. How would your handling change if the returned item had been sealed innerwear with the seal broken?
Read the worked answer
The courtesy steps stay identical - quiet space, full hearing, verification of purchase, a definite answer. What changes is the outcome and the explanation. Broken-seal innerwear cannot be resold, so no store can absorb it as a normal exchange; the reason is hygiene and the next customer's safety, not an arbitrary rule. So I would:
- state the reason plainly ("once the seal is open, we cannot put it back on the shelf for anyone else") rather than quoting policy;
- separate the two possible claims - size/fit (no remedy possible, offer an alternative purchase or a brand-level size guide) versus a quality defect (offer to send it to the brand for inspection, since most brands replace defective innerwear regardless of seal);
- record it in the register with the same detail, because a repeated defect claim on one lot is a supplier issue, not a customer issue. The judgement being tested is consistency: the same customer-friendly front end, but an honest, reason-based answer at the back end instead of either a flat refusal or a rule-bending exception.