Charging Excess For Photocopying Based On Misleading Advertisement Is Unfair Trade Practice: Thrissur District Commission

The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising C.T Sabu, President, Sreeja S., Member and Ram Mohan R. Member has held a shop owner liable for displaying misleading advertisement and charging an excess amount for photocopy from the complainant. The bench further raised concerns regarding the impact of such practices on the consumers which jeopardize their dignity and right to live freely without exploitation.

Brief facts:

The complainant went to a shop on 03.04.2018 named SKCL Big ('opposite party') for taking photocopies. The shop had displayed an advertisement stating that photocopying services were available at 29 paise and 35 paise per copy. The complainant took 1203 photocopies but was charged 75 paisa per copy. After arguing with the opposite party, a reduced rate was provided and Rs. 840/- was charged from the complainant.

As per the complainant, he was charged Rs. 492/- in excess of the rate as specified. It was contended that the complainant got attracted to the advertisement and opted for the service rendered by the opposite party. Thus, a complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deception and fault by the opposite party.

Submissions of the opposite party:

It was submitted that the offer of photocopies at the rates of 29 and 35 paise is for taking more than 2000 copies of a document in double side pages. It was argued that the complainant had taken copies of three different documents and hence the offer was not applicable to them. It was further submitted that the cost of A4 sheet to be around 45 paisa and only 25 paisa is being collected towards charges for ink, electricity and labour.

Observations & Decision :

The Commission observed that the advertisement does not mention at all any of the prerequisite conditions which will make a consumer eligible to avail the offer. It relied on Section 6 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which vests a consumer with a right to be informed of the quality, quantity, purity, standard and price of goods so as to protect him from unfair trade practices. It was observed that failure to mention any of the conditions in the advertisement makes it misleading which amounts to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

It was further observed that as per the advertisement, the complainant should have been charged a sum of Rs. 348/- but was charged Rs. 840/-. Thus, the complainant was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 491/- which was the excess amount.

The bench further shed light on the impact of such practices on the consumers. It observed that the consumers are generally reluctant to enter into dispute with erring vendors or service providers when the amount involved is nominal. Such unfair acts on the part of errant service providers amounts to jeopardising the dignity of the consumer and his right to live a life free from exploitation.

Thus, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs:

1. Refund of excess sum of Rs. 491/-

2. Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony

3. Rs. 2,500 as costs

A sum of Rs. 10,000 was also directed to be paid to the Legal Benefit Fund maintained with the registry of the commission towards reparation of loss and injury inflicted on the large number of consumers who are not identifiable.

The opposite party was further directed to discontinue the unfair trade practice of displaying the misleading advertisement or any other similar advertisement.

Case Title: Krishnakutty V vs Sri. Bose Varghese

Case Number: CC/201/2018

Date of Decision: 27.01.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order