Bata ordered to pay Rs 2,000 compensation for charging Rs 67 above MRP for a pair of shoes

A law student’s legal pursuance to reclaim an excess amount of Rs 67 paid over the printed Maximum Retail Price (MRP) while purchasing a pair of shoes has culminated in the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing Bata India Limited to compensate him with Rs 2,000, while reducing an earlier award of Rs 10,000 granted by the district consumer forum.

The State Commission, comprising president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member Ajith Kumar D and member K R Radhakrishnan, dismissed an appeal filed by Bata India Limited and the manager of its Ernakulam showroom against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, on August 16, 2024.

While the appellate body found the compensation and litigation costs awarded by the district forum to be excessive, it upheld the finding that the retailer had indulged in deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice by collecting an amount above the printed MRP without complying with mandatory legal disclosure requirements.

The dispute arose after Sanjay Raj, then a student of Government Law College, Ernakulam, purchased a pair of Bata shoes from the company’s Broadway showroom on March 16, 2022. Although the shoes bore a printed MRP of Rs 999, he was billed Rs 1,066. Upon questioning the additional charge, the store manager reportedly informed him that retailers were permitted to collect the revised tax over and above the printed MRP for goods sold after January 1, 2022.

Aggrieved by the excess charge, Raj approached the district consumer forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Despite receiving notice, Bata failed to file its written version within the prescribed statutory period.

Relying on the complainant’s affidavit and documentary evidence, including photographs of the shoes and purchase records, the district commission directed the company to refund the excess Rs 67, pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

Before the State Commission, Bata argued that Rule 18(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 permitted retailers to recover additional tax over the printed MRP where there had been an increase in taxes imposed by the Central or State Government.

The Commission, however, observed that while the rule allows such recovery in limited circumstances, it simultaneously mandates specific safeguards, including publication of the revised price and affixing a revised MRP sticker or marking on the packaged commodity. It found no evidence that the shoes purchased by the complainant carried any revised MRP sticker, noting instead that they displayed only the original printed price of Rs 999.

While affirming the direction to refund the excess Rs 67, the Commission reduced the compensation from Rs 10,000 to Rs 2,000 and the litigation costs from Rs 5,000 to Rs 1,000, dismissing Bata’s appeal in all other respects.