Bata store in Tarnaka fined Rs 5,000 for charging Rs 47 over MRP

HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the Bata Shoe store located at Tara Tycoon Commercial Complex, Main Road, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, and Bata India Ltd., Gurugram, Haryana to refund Rs 47 they have charged over and above MRP from Jalandhar Reddy Vallapu, a resident of Tarnaka, for a pair of footwear that he has purchased.

The Commission also directed the shoe company to pay Rs 5,000 to Jalandhar Reddy for causing mental agony and towards the costs of litigation. The time for compliance has been set to 45 days from the date of the Commission’s order.

On June 4, 2022, Jalandhar Reddy visited the said Bata showroom to purchase footwear. He eventually selected Classic SA footwear of size 8 at MRP Rs 699 displayed on the tag and sticker attached to the footwear box. After he made the payment using his debit card, he was given the tax invoice of Rs 746 instead of the MRP price of Rs 699.

When he questioned about the excess amount charged, the person at the counter vaguely replied that the system was showing the amount as Rs 746. When repeatedly asked why an excess amount of Rs 47 was charged over and above the MRP, Bata showroom did not come up with a valid reason.

The term MRP itself is the abbreviation for the Maximum Retail Price which includes all taxes and no extra taxes should be charged and no extra amount should be collected. This amounted to unfair trade practices on the part of the shoe company for which no valid reason was given when Jalandhar Reddy asked for a refund of the said amount.

Vexed with the attitude of Bata, Jalandhar Reddy filed a case against the deficiency in service with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking a refund of Rs 47 besides Rs 10,000 towards traveling and costs of the litigation, Rs 50,000 towards compensation and Rs 1,00,000 towards punitive damages.

However, the Bata shoe company relied upon a judgment delivered by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and denied the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It argued that the revision in GST and its impact on the MRP has led to the increase in price of the footwear and that they were permitted to sell the unsold footwear after revising the MRP.

After hearing both sides, the Commission was of the opinion that the reputed shoe company was deficient in service as claimed by Jalandhar Reddy. It gave orders in favour of the consumer.