A Kerala consumer commission held a clothing store deficient in service after it refused to refund the price of a pair of school uniform pants that did not fit the complainant’s son, despite the salesman allegedly assuring him that it could be returned if the size was unsuitable. The commission directed the store to refund Rs 599 and pay Rs 2,000 towards compensation and litigation costs.President P V Jayarajan, along with members Preetha G Nair and Viju V R, was hearing the complaint filed by a man who bought black school uniform pants for his son, which he later found did not fit when tried at home.“As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (store), we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant,” the July 20 order read. Pants did not fitThe man claimed that he purchased a readymade black school uniform pants from the store, but when his son tried it over the clothes he was already wearing at the shop, they did not fit properly. According to the man, the salesman informed them that since the pants were tried on over the existing clothes, its fitting could not be accurately assessed.The salesman allegedly advised them to try the pants properly at home and assured them that if the size was not correct, it could be returned and exchanged.Believing the assurance given by the store, the complainant paid the price and purchased the pants. However, when his son tried the pants at home, the size was allegedly found to be unsuitable.The complainant claimed that when he requested a refund, the store refused and instead asked him to purchase another item from the shop. He allegedly told the store that he did not require any other item and sought only a refund, but the store declined to return the money. Aggrieved, he moved the commission alleging deficiency in service.Story continues below this adNoting that the store had not produced any evidence to prove its arguments, the commission found that the store admitted that the purchase of school uniform pants offered an exchange, and the complainant was not interested in purchasing another. Finding the store deficient in service, the commission directed the store to refund Rs 599, pay Rs 1,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 1,000 towards litigation costs, within one month. Store’s defenceThe store, represented by advocate Sandeep T George, argued that the complainant, attracted by the great discounts being offered by the said society, had, after thorough inspection of the readymade pants, purchased the same. It was added that before selecting the pants, his son wore the same over the existing pants, and the man was fully satisfied with the size of the same. The store claimed that the complainant’s allegation that the salesman had offered a refund if the same was returned due to any problem with the size was wrong. It was also submitted that the salesman had informed the complainant that there was no refund and that he could take the next size product or any other products of the same value. Story continues below this adTakeawayThe ruling highlights that when a seller assures a customer that an item can be returned or exchanged if it does not fit, the assurance can be relevant in determining whether refusal to honour it amounts to deficiency in service.For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance. Don’t miss out on these storiesEvents firm ‘quits’ amid bride’s pre-wedding functions, father wins Rs 6.7 lakh payoutPolicy cancelled over ‘hypertension’, insurer ordered to restore it, pay Rs 1.10 lakhStory continues below this adKerala man wins Rs 1.36 lakh payout after missing connecting flight to Riyadh