NEW DELHI: The Kerala state consumer commission has upheld an order against Bata India and held it liable for charging Rs 67 above the MRP on a pair of shoes, and noted that a retailer cannot legally charge more than the printed MRP.What was the issueThe complainant, a student of the Government Law College, Ernakulam, purchased a pair of shoes from Bata’s Broadway showroom in Ernakulam on 16 March 2022. The MRP printed on the shoes was Rs 999, but the store charged him Rs 1,066.On questioning over the excess amount, the complainant was told by the store manager that “the government had allowed the collection of sales tax above the MRP for items sold after 01.01.2022.” Believing this to be an unfair overcharge, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.After examining the complainant’s evidence, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint, directing Bata to refund the excess Rs 67, along with Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. Bata challenged this order before the state commission.What did the commission sayBefore the state commission, Bata’s counsel argued that the company was entitled to collect the higher amount under Rule 18(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which allows sellers to charge above the printed MRP when tax rates increase.The commission examined this rule and noted that even if such a price revision is legally permitted, “there must be a marking/sticker on the goods indicating that the goods were pre-packed in the month in which the tax had been revised, or fresh tax had been imposed.”“As per the said rule, if any excess tax is to be collected over and above the MRP due to the increase in the tax by the state government or the central government, the said aspect has to be published in two newspapers. The second proviso to Rule 18(3) mandates that the earlier as well as the new rate should be shown in the shoes,” the commssion noted.However, the commission found that no such sticker was actually placed on the shoes the customer bought. This matched what the customer had said, and there was no evidence at all to prove otherwise.Since the shoes only showed the original MRP of Rs 999 with no updated price shown anywhere, the commission said Bata was required to display the correct MRP sticker on the shoes. Because it failed to do this, the commission held that Bata was clearly guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.The commission agreed with the district commission’s order to refund the extra Rs 67, saying this part of the decision was fair. However, it felt the compensation and costs awarded earlier were too high. So it reduced the compensation from Rs 10,000 to Rs 2,000, and the litigation costs from Rs 5,000 to Rs 1,000.