Delhi District Commission Imposes Punitive Damages Worth Rs. 15 Lakhs On Emami For Unfair Trade Practices And Misleading Advertisements

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Delhi bench of Shri Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Ms Rashmi Bansal (Member) held Emami Ltd. liable for unfair trade practices and misleading advertisement claiming to give fairer skin within three weeks. Brief facts: The complainant purchased 'Fair and Handsome Cream' of Emami (respondent) worth Rs. 79/- from a shop on 08.10.2012. The cream (product) claimed to be world's no.1 cream for men to get fairer skin in just three weeks. However, after the usage as per directions mentioned on the packing the complainant could not get even a single benefit. The complainant alleged Emami of making false promises through advertisements which amounts to unfair trade practices. Due to failure of the product, the complainant emailed the respondent but he received no response. Further, lack of proper information led to violation of his Right to Information. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint in the District Commission for punitive damages of Rs.19,90,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Contentions of Emami: The respondent contended on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the matter as the total amount claimed has exceeded Rs.20 lakhs by Rs. 79/-. Earlier, the complaint has been disposed of by the District Commission on 31.10.2015 in favour of the complainant. However, Emami filed an appeal in the State Commission and later in the National Commission but the case was remanded to the District Commission for final hearing. Further, the respondent alleged that the complainant has not purchased the product due to incomplete information on cash memo. The complainant has also failed to prove the regular usage of the cream. Emami stated that their product was scientifically proven and it has been developed in USA by noble prize-winning skin expert The fairness cream is tested for normal young men within the age of 16-35 years to protect their skin from darkening due to UV rays. The effect of product varied according to several factors and there has been no evidence related to lifestyle of the complainant. Moreover, the complaint suffered from non-joinder of shopkeeper as a necessary party. Emami argued the complaint to be baseless as they have received a lot of appreciation from the customers. Observation of the District Commission: The commission noted that the complaint was within the pecuniary limit of the District Commission as the matter did not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. The commission noted that the cash memo contained all the necessary details and the complainant was the user of the product. The commission dismissed the plea of non-joinder of shopkeeper as a necessary party as the cause of action was only against Emami. The commission rejected the complainant's grievance of the product being defective as there was no defect in the fairness cream as per the standards of Advertising Standards Council of India. The commission held that the respondent cannot expect a customer to know and follow the instructions according to the label. Further, the commission could not conclude the effectiveness of the product as regular usage of the product was difficult to prove. Moreover, the commission rejected the expert affidavit by the respondent as it was unreliable and lacked personal opinion. The commission relied on the standards set by Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI) to determine the character of trade practices. The label of the product contained the instruction to apply the product on face and neck twice daily after cleansing and for other benefits, it was advised to use vitamin A and E. The label did not mention other conditions that the cream was a personal hygiene product and its result depended on multiple factors. Further the commission objected on the evaluation of fair skin according to the packaging. Due to incomplete instructions, an average intelligent customer could be misled which proved unfair trade practices on part of Emami. Thus, the commission directed the respondent to withdraw all advertisements including of brand ambassador, packaging and labelling of the product. Pertaining to the new packaging, the commission did not comment on it. In spite of establishing unfair trade practices against Emami, the complainant could not prove any defect in services. Reliance was placed on General Motors India Private Limited Vs Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat and Anr UV 2014 CPJ 1 (SC), wherein it was held that proof of unfair trade practices is not sufficient to establish actual loss suffered. Further, in Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s KLM Royal Dutch & Another (2000) 1 SCC 66 it was held that deficiency in services should include evidence of inadequacy of services. Although the product did not work for the complainant but he has not suffered any injury due to its usage. But the complainant is entitled to punitive damages to ...

Delhi District Commission Imposes Punitive Damages Worth Rs. 15 Lakhs On Emami For Unfair Trade Practices And Misleading Advertisements

Amrisha Kumari

Tags