Kerala consumer court orders Kalyan Silks to pay ₹31,500 for misleading Onam offer

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) at Ernakulam recently directed Kalyan Silks to pay ₹31,500 to a customer after finding that its Onam advertisement promising ₹1,500 in shopping benefits on a purchase of ₹3,000 was misleading and amounted to an unfair trade practice [Venugopala Pillai PV v M/S Kalyan Silks].A Bench of President DB Binu along with members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia TN observed that although the ₹1,500 benefit was prominently advertised, important conditions for availing the benefit were not displayed with similar prominence."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 commission said on August 21.It thus directed Kalyan Silks to pay ₹1,500 towards the advertised shopping benefit and ₹25,000 as compensation for unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, inconvenience, mental distress, and loss of time. It also awarded ₹5,000 towards litigation costs..The order was passed on a complaint filed by 81-year-old RTI and consumer protection activist, Venugopala Pillai PV.According to the complaint, Kalyan Silks had published a full-page advertisement in Mathrubhoomi newspaper in August 2023 stating that customers purchasing goods worth ₹3,000 would receive shopping benefits worth ₹1,500.Attracted by the offer, Pillai and his family members visited the showroom and selected garments worth ₹4,055.However, he was later informed that the ₹1,500 benefit would be given through three coupons of ₹500 each and that each coupon could be used only against a separate purchase of at least ₹1,500 during September, October and November 2023..The commission noted that this meant that a customer had to make three further purchases totaling at least ₹4,500 to get the entire ₹1,500 benefit which was advertised.It ruled that these were not minor conditions since they substantially changed the nature of the promotional offer."The difference between an immediate shopping benefit of ₹1,500/- and three future conditional discounts linked to separate minimum purchases is commercially substantial. A prominent claim cannot be evaluated in isolation from conditions that materially alter its meaning," the commission said..Kalyan Silks argued that the conditions were disclosed in the advertisement and were also explained by its salesman and cashier before the purchase was completed. They also relied on advertisements published later which contained details of the scheme.The commission rejected this defence, noting that the advertisement had already served its purpose of attracting the customer to the showroom before the conditions were orally explained."A later oral explanation cannot retrospectively convert a materially misleading principal representation into a fair advertisement," the commission said.Relying on Sections 2(28) (misleading advertisemen) and 2(47) (unfair trade practices) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the commission said that an advertisement must be looked at as a whole from the perspective of an ordinary consumer and that fine print cannot save an otherwise misleading main claim made in an advertisement.The commission also found deficiency in service in relation to the tax invoices issued by Kalyan Silks, which had faded and become substantially unreadable within a few months."A tax invoice is not a disposable token. It is a transactional record that may be required by a consumer for warranty claims, returns, taxation, accounting, complaints and proof of purchase," the commission stated..Therefore, it directed Kalyan Silks to provide the complainant with a clear duplicate/electronic copy of the invoices and ordered them to ensure that their future bills remain reasonably durable and legible.They were also directed to provide duplicate/ electronic copies on request when fading-prone material such as thermal paper is used.The commission further directed the company to stop publishing such promotional advertisements where important conditions for availing the offers are in inconspicuous or illegible print."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 directed..Advocate Ramakrishnan MN represented Kalyan Silks..[Read Order]