Overcharged Rs 67 on shoe MRP, Bata ordered to refund student, pay Rs 2,000

5 min readNew DelhiJun 30, 2026 12:30 PM IST

The Kerala State Consumer Commission reduced the compensation from Rs 10,000 to Rs 2,000 and the litigation costs from Rs 5,000 to Rs 1,000. (Image generated using AI)

Stating that retailers cannot charge consumers more than the printed MRP merely by citing a tax hike without complying with mandatory legal disclosure requirements, the Kerala State Consumer Commission has upheld a finding of unfair trade practice against Bata for collecting Rs 67 over the MRP on a pair of shoes sold to a law student, reducing the compensation awarded to the consumer from Rs 10,000 to Rs 2,000.

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, Ajith Kumar D (judicial member) and K R Radhakrishnan (member) were hearing an appeal filed by Bata India Limited and the manager of its Ernakulam showroom against the August 16, 2024 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam.

“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… The opposite parties were bound to show the correct MRP sticker on the shoes purchased by the complainant. Since that was not done, there was, no doubt, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,” the commission said on June 22.

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 Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Rs 999, he was charged Rs 1,066 at the billing counter. When he questioned the additional amount, the store manager allegedly informed him that the government had permitted retailers to collect tax over and above the printed MRP for goods sold after January 1, 2022.

Student moves consumer forum over Rs 67 excess charge

Aggrieved by the overcharging, Raj approached the district consumer commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Although notice was served on Bata, the company failed to file its written version within the statutory period. The complainant relied on his affidavit and documentary evidence, including photographs of the shoes and the purchase records.

After considering the material on record, the district commission partly allowed the complaint on August 16, 2024. It directed Bata to refund the excess amount of Rs 67, pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

Bata relied on legal metrology rules

Challenging the order before the state commission, Bata argued that Rule 18(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 permitted collection of additional tax over the printed MRP where there had been an increase in taxes imposed by the Central or the state government. The company contended that the additional amount collected from the complainant was therefore legally justified.

Story continues below this ad

Commission rejects defence

The state commission observed that while the rule permits recovery of additional tax in certain situations, it also imposes mandatory safeguards. These include publication of the revised prices and affixing an appropriate marking or sticker on the packaged commodity indicating the revised price where applicable.

The bench found that there was no evidence whatsoever that the shoes purchased by the complainant carried any such revised MRP sticker. On the contrary, the complainant’s evidence and exhibits established that the shoes only displayed the original printed MRP of Rs 999.

The commission held that Bata was under a legal obligation to display the revised MRP through the prescribed mechanism before collecting any amount over the printed price. Since that was not done, the company was rightly held guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Compensation reduced, finding against Bata upheld

While affirming the district commission‘s conclusion that Bata had wrongly charged the consumer, the state commission found that the compensation and litigation costs awarded were excessive.

It accordingly reduced the compensation from Rs 10,000 to Rs 2,000 and the litigation costs from Rs 5,000 to Rs 1,000.

The direction to refund the excess amount of Rs 67 was left undisturbed.

Dismissing Bata’s appeal, the commission confirmed the district commission’s order in all other respects and directed that the statutory deposit made by the company during the appeal be adjusted towards the amount payable to the complainant, with any remaining balance to be refunded to Bata.

Significance

The ruling reinforces an important consumer protection principle that retailers cannot collect amounts higher than the printed MRP merely by citing an increase in taxes. Even where the law permits recovery of additional tax, sellers must strictly comply with the disclosure requirements under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, including affixing the prescribed revised MRP sticker or marking on the product. Failure to do so can amount to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, entitling consumers to a refund and compensation.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.

Expertise

Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:

Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.

Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.

Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.

Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

Tags:

Consumer Disputes

retail prices

shoe