Case Summary
The Ernakulam District Commission, led by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran, and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., determined that overcharging a customer and refusing to provide a refund constitutes a deficiency in service.
Case Overview
A law student filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the Bata showroom in Ernakulam. The student purchased black shoes with an MRP of Rs 999 but was charged Rs 1066. Upon questioning this discrepancy, the store manager claimed that a sales tax could be added above the MRP for items sold after January 1, 2022. The manager also insulted the complainant and their friends, despite their legal background. The student pointed out that the shoes were old stock, with the MRP unchanged, and found the same shoes priced at Rs 549 on Amazon. Furthermore, the shoes were delivered without a proper box. When the student sought a refund due to poor fit, they were advised to wear thinner socks instead. This led to significant distress, negatively impacting their internship performance. The complainant sought Rs 1,00,000 in compensation for overcharging, selling outdated stock without a discount, refusal to refund, and mental distress.
Opposite Party’s Arguments
The opposite party contended that the complaint was not valid, claiming there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. They argued that the complaint was flawed due to the absence of the correct legal entity, M/s Bata India Limited, and referenced Supreme Court rulings to support this position. They attributed the price increase to a GST revision and insisted that they complied with all legal requirements. Additionally, they questioned the Commission’s territorial jurisdiction. Despite these arguments, the complainant’s claims were upheld as valid and unchallenged, leading to a ruling against the opposite party.
District Commission’s Findings
The District Commission noted that under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant was a consumer who had purchased goods from the opposite party. The complaint was filed within the allowable period and was deemed valid. The Commission found that the complainant provided sufficient evidence to prove both their consumer status and the transaction with the opposite party. It was observed 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 defense regarding a government tax revision was flawed since Rule 18(3) prohibits charging more than the MRP, even with tax changes. This constituted an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Referencing the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s judgment in Nagneshwar Sharma vs. Titan Industries Limited & Ors., the Commission emphasized that charging more than the MRP is a deficiency in service. The opposite party’s overcharging, refusal to refund, and dismissive behavior led to mental distress and a breach of trust. The Commission found these actions to be clear deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices.
Decision
The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the opposite party to refund the Rs. 67 collected in excess of the MRP. Additionally, the opposite party was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and breach of trust due to the deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices, as well as ₹5,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWa