Failure to Stitch Shirt to Agreed Measurements Amounts to Deficiency in Service, Rules Consumer Forum
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, has held that failing to stitch a garment as per the specific measurements agreed upon amounts to both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. In a complaint filed by a software engineer against C Fines Gents & Ladies Tailoring, the Commission found the tailoring shop liable not only for the defective stitching but also for its refusal to rectify the issue or refund the amount paid. The Bench, comprising President Shri D.B. Binu and Members Shri V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N, passed the final order on March 24, 2025, in Complaint No. 877 of 2024.
According to the complaint, the consumer approached the tailoring shop on August 14, 2023, requesting that a shirt be stitched to the exact measurements of an existing well-fitting shirt. The tailoring shop accepted the shirting material and the order, and the stitched shirt was later collected by the complainant’s relative, who also paid ₹550 in tailoring charges.
Upon receiving the shirt, the complainant found that it deviated significantly from the agreed measurements, rendering it unwearable. On January 6, 2024, the complainant personally visited the shop to request alterations to match the original measurements. However, the tailoring shop declined to make any changes or refund the charges.
A legal notice was subsequently issued on February 17, 2024, seeking corrective action, but no response was received. The complainant then approached the Commission, seeking compensation of ₹41,850 for loss of time, mental agony, lost opportunity, travel, tailoring costs, and legal expenses. Despite being served notice, the tailoring shop failed to appear or file a written version, and the case proceeded ex parte. The Commission treated the shop’s failure to contest the complaint as an implied admission of the allegations.
After evaluating the documentary evidence and hearing the complainant, the Commission concluded that there was clear evidence of deficiency in service. It emphasized that the complainant had established his status as a "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by paying consideration for the service. Tailoring was classified as a "service" under Section 2(42), and the shop’s conduct fell squarely within the definition of "deficiency" under Section 2(11), which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality or manner of performance promised.
The Commission further held that the refusal to refund or alter the shirt, coupled with failure to respond to the legal notice and non-appearance before the Commission, demonstrated a lack of professionalism and accountability. It described tailoring as a service that reflects trust, precision, and satisfaction and found that the tailoring shop’s actions eroded consumer confidence.
The Commission partly allowed the complaint and passed the following directions:
Refund of ₹2,350, which included ₹1,800 for the shirting material and ₹550 as tailoring charges.
Payment of ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and inconvenience caused by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
₹5,000 towards costs of proceedings incurred by the complainant.
The opposite party was directed to comply with the order within 45 days from receipt. In the event of default, the amounts awarded under points 1 and 2 would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until realization.
Cause Title: Thomas Jimmy V. Manager, C Fines Gents & Ladies Tailoring
Case No: CC.No. 877 of 2024
Coram: Shri. D.B. Binu [President], Shri. V. Ramachandran [Member], Smt. Sreevidhia T.N [Member]
[Read/Download order]
