“What Is Given By The Headline Cannot Be Taken Away By Fine Print”: Ernakulam Consumer Commission Holds Kalyan Silks Liable For Misleading Onam Advertisement
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., has held that Kalyan Silks engaged in a misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice by prominently advertising shopping benefits worth ₹1,500 on purchases of ₹3,000 while displaying material redemption conditions in inconspicuous print without reasonable prominence. The Commission also found deficiency in service for issuing invoices that became illegible within a short period and failing to provide a legible replacement when the grievance was raised.
Facts
The complaint was filed by Venugopala Pillai, an 81-year-old consumer protection activist, under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. According to him, a full-page advertisement published in Mathrubhumi on August 12, 2023 prominently represented that customers purchasing goods worth ₹3,000 would receive shopping benefits worth ₹1,500.
Acting on the advertisement, the complainant, along with his son and daughter-in-law, visited Kalyan Silks on August 27, 2023 and selected garments worth ₹4,055. According to him, he was thereafter informed that the advertised shopping benefit of ₹1,500 was not immediately or unconditionally available. Instead, the retailer issued three coupons of ₹500 each, redeemable only against separate future purchases of at least ₹1,500 during September, October and November 2023.
The complainant contended that these restrictions were printed in extremely small and inconspicuous lettering and were not reasonably noticeable to an ordinary consumer. He further alleged that the tax invoices issued by the retailer faded within a few months, rendering them substantially illegible. Despite issuing a registered grievance notice, he claimed that no effective redress was provided.
Contentions
Kalyan Silks admitted the complainant's purchase, the publication of the promotional advertisements and the issuance of three ₹500 coupons, but denied that the advertisement was misleading. It contended that the terms of the scheme had been clearly disclosed and explained to the complainant before the purchase. The retailer also relied on subsequent advertisements published in August 2023 to show that the scheme's conditions were adequately disclosed and maintained that thermal-paper invoices were a standard commercial practice that did not amount to deficiency in service.
Observations
The Commission found that although the advertisement prominently offered shopping benefits worth ₹1,500 on purchases of ₹3,000, the benefit was subject to three future purchases of at least ₹1,500 each. It held that these were material conditions that significantly altered the nature of the offer and could not be treated as incidental.
Referring to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, the Commission observed that a misleading advertisement must be assessed from the perspective of an ordinary consumer. It held that material conditions cannot be concealed in fine print, remarking that "what is given by the headline cannot effectively be taken away by inconspicuous fine print."
The Commission further held that subsequent oral explanations or later advertisements could not cure the effect of the original advertisement. On the issue of invoices, it observed that consumers are entitled to reasonably durable and legible transactional documents, and that the failure to provide a legible duplicate or electronic copy of the faded invoices amounted to deficiency in service.
Accordingly, the Commission held that Kalyan Silks had engaged in an unfair trade practice and was also deficient in post-sale service.
Decision
Allowing the complaint in part, the Commission directed Kalyan Silks to pay ₹1,500 as restitution, ₹25,000 as compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission further directed the retailer to provide a legible duplicate or electronic copy of the invoices and ensure that future invoices are reasonably durable and readable. It also restrained the retailer from publishing advertisements in which material eligibility, redemption or validity conditions are relegated to inconspicuous print, and directed that such conditions be disclosed clearly and prominently in future promotional campaigns.
The directions are to be complied with within 45 days, failing which the amounts awarded towards restitution and compensation will carry interest at 9% per annum until realization.
Case Title: Venugopala Pillai P.V. v. M/s Kalyan Silks
Case No.: CC No. 1001 of 2025