Kerala Consumer Court Ruling on Misleading Onam Advertisement
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Ernakulam has issued a ruling against Kalyan Silks, mandating that the retailer compensate a customer with ₹31,500. This decision comes after the court found that the company’s Onam promotional advertisement was deceptive and constituted unfair trade practice. The case is referenced as Venugopala Pillai PV v M/S Kalyan Silks.
The bench, comprising President DB Binu and members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia TN, highlighted that while the advertisement prominently claimed a ₹1,500 shopping benefit on purchases of ₹3,000, the conditions for availing this benefit were not equally emphasized. The commission stated on August 21, “In consumer advertising, what is given by the headline cannot effectively be taken away by inconspicuous fine print. The principal claim and the material conditions must convey the same commercial proposition.”
The court has directed Kalyan Silks to pay the customer ₹1,500 as the advertised benefit, alongside ₹25,000 as compensation for unfair trade practices, service deficiencies, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of time. An additional ₹5,000 was awarded for litigation costs.
Details of the Complaint
The complaint was lodged by 81-year-old RTI and consumer activist, Venugopala Pillai PV. He argued that Kalyan Silks published a misleading full-page advertisement in the Mathrubhoomi newspaper in August 2023, offering shopping benefits of ₹1,500 on a purchase of ₹3,000. Enticed by this offer, Pillai and his family purchased garments worth ₹4,055 from the store.
However, upon purchase, they were informed that the ₹1,500 benefit would be distributed through three ₹500 coupons, each redeemable only against separate purchases of at least ₹1,500 during the months of September, October, and November 2023. The commission noted that this required customers to make additional purchases totaling at least ₹4,500 to fully utilize the advertised benefit.
Commission’s Observations and Rulings
The commission pointed out that these conditions significantly altered the promotional offer’s nature. “The difference between an immediate shopping benefit of ₹1,500 and three future conditional discounts linked to separate minimum purchases is commercially substantial,” the commission remarked.
Kalyan Silks contended that the conditions were clearly mentioned in the advertisement and were explained by their staff prior to purchase. They also referenced subsequent advertisements with detailed scheme conditions. However, the commission dismissed these arguments, stating that the initial advertisement achieved its purpose of attracting customers before any oral clarification was made.
Citing Sections 2(28) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the commission emphasized that advertisements should be evaluated holistically from an ordinary consumer’s perspective, and that fine print cannot rectify a misleading primary claim.
Additional Findings and Directions
The commission also identified a deficiency in service regarding the tax invoices provided by Kalyan Silks, which faded and became unreadable within a few months. “A tax invoice is not a disposable token. It is a transactional record required for warranty claims, returns, taxation, accounting, complaints, and proof of purchase,” the commission noted.
Kalyan Silks has been instructed to supply the complainant with clear duplicate or electronic copies of the invoices and ensure future bills are durable and legible. They must also provide duplicate/electronic copies upon request if using fading-prone materials like thermal paper.
The court further directed the company to cease publishing promotional advertisements where significant conditions are not prominently displayed. “In all future promotional advertisements, the opposite party shall disclose every material condition affecting the availability or redemption of the advertised benefit clearly, legibly, and with reasonable prominence alongside the principal claim,” the commission ordered.
Advocate Ramakrishnan MN represented Kalyan Silks in the proceedings.
