Charging More Than MRP Constitutes Deficiency In Service:Ernakulam District Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 by a law student who visited the Bata showroom in Ernakulam to purchase black shoes. Although the MRP of the shoes was Rs 999, the student was charged Rs 1066. When the discrepancy was questioned, the store manager claimed that sales tax could be collected above the MRP for items sold after January 1, 2022, and insulted the complainant and friends for being unaware of this, despite being law students. The student noted that the shoes were old stock, yet the MRP remained unchanged, and the same shoes were available for Rs 549 on Amazon. Additionally, the shoes were handed over without a proper box, and when the student requested a refund due to poor fit, they were advised to wear thinner socks instead, which added to their distress. Unable to afford another pair of shoes, the complainant's performance at their internship was negatively impacted, leading to severe mental agony. The complaint seeks Rs 1,00,000 in compensation for overcharging, selling old stock without a discount, denying refunds, and causing mental distress.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The opposite party argued that the complaint was not maintainable, asserting no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. They claimed the complaint was invalid due to the absence of the proper legal entity, M/s Bata India Limited, and cited Supreme Court rulings to support this. The price increase in the shoes was attributed to a GST revision, and the opposite party maintained compliance with all legal requirements. They also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. Despite these defenses, the complainant's claims were upheld as credible and unchallenged, leading to a finding against the opposite party.

Observations by the District Commission

The District Commission observed that under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant qualified as a consumer, having purchased goods from the opposite party. The complaint was filed within the limitation period and was maintainable. The Commission found that the complainant provided sufficient evidence, proving his consumer status and the transaction with the opposite party. It was highlighted that the complainant was charged Rs. 1066 for shoes marked with an MRP of Rs. 999, which violated the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The opposite party's justification based on a government tax revision was deemed flawed, as Rule 18(3) mandates that retail prices cannot exceed the MRP, even after a tax change. This act was considered an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Citing the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's judgment in Nagneshwar Sharma vs. Titan Industries Limited & Ors., the Commission underscored that charging more than the MRP constitutes a deficiency in service, making the seller liable under consumer protection laws. The opposite party's actions in overcharging, refusal to refund, and dismissive behavior further exacerbated the situation, leading to mental agony and a breach of trust. Given the legal precedents and statutory framework, the Commission found the opposite party's actions to be clear deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices.

The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 67, which was collected in excess of the MRP, to the complainant. Additionally, it was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and breach of trust due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The opposite party was also required to pay ₹5,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Case Title: Sanjay Raj Vs. Binesh Chacko

Case Number: C.C. No. 22/173