The Ernakulam District Commission recently ruled in favor of a law student who was charged beyond the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for shoes at a Bata showroom. The Commission ordered a refund of the excess amount and compensation for mental distress, highlighting that overcharging above the MRP is a
The Ernakulam District Commission recently delivered a judgment reinforcing the rights of consumers against overcharging beyond the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The ruling came in response to a complaint filed by a law student against a Bata showroom in Ernakulam, which allegedly sold shoes above the marked MRP. This case underlines the responsibilities of retailers to adhere to consumer protection laws and maintain fair trade practices.
Background of the Case
- Complainant: A law student visited a Bata showroom in Ernakulam intending to buy black shoes.
- MRP Issue: Although the shoes were marked with an MRP of Rs. 999, the store charged the student Rs. 1,066.
- Store Manager’s Claim: The manager justified the excess charge by citing sales tax revisions applicable after January 1, 2022, and allegedly insulted the complainant for being unaware of this rule, despite being a law student.
- Other Complaints:
- The shoes were old stock, but no discount was provided.
- The shoes were handed over without a proper box.
- Upon requesting a refund due to a poor fit, the student was advised to wear thinner socks.
- Impact on Complainant: Unable to buy another pair due to financial constraints, the complainant faced difficulties in their internship, resulting in severe mental distress.
- Relief Sought: The complaint requested Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for overcharging, selling old stock without discounts, denying refunds, and causing mental agony.
Arguments by the Opposite Party
- Maintainability of the Complaint: The opposite party claimed the complaint was invalid as it did not involve the proper legal entity (M/s Bata India Limited).
- Price Increase Justification: They cited a GST revision as the reason for the increased price and claimed compliance with all legal requirements.
- Jurisdiction Dispute: The opposite party also contested the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission.
- Despite these defenses, the Commission deemed the complainant’s allegations credible, leading to a decision against the opposite party.
Observations by the District Commission
- Consumer Status: Under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant was recognized as a consumer, and the complaint was filed within the permissible timeframe.
- Legal Violation:
- The Commission found that charging Rs. 1,066 for shoes with an MRP of Rs. 999 violated the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
- Rule 18(3) specifies that the retail price cannot exceed the MRP, even with tax revisions.
- The act was identified as an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Legal Precedent: The Commission cited the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decision in Nagneshwar Sharma vs. Titan Industries Limited & Ors., emphasizing that overcharging above the MRP constitutes a deficiency in service.
- Impact on Consumer: The opposite party’s overcharging, refusal to refund, and dismissive behavior led to mental distress and breached the consumer’s trust.
Final Ruling and Compensation
- The Commission ordered the opposite party to:
- Refund Rs. 67, which was charged above the MRP.
- Pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental distress and breach of trust.
- Pay Rs. 5,000 towards the cost of proceedings.
Click to read: Sanjay Raj vs. Binesh Chacko, C.C. No. 22/173
