‘Misleading’ Onam offer: Textile retailer ordered to pay Rs 31,500 to senior citizen

Onam offer

The complainant said that a full-page advertisement published in a newspaper on August 12, 2023, represented that customers purchasing goods worth Rs 3,000 would receive shopping benefits worth Rs 1,500. Acting on the advertisement, the complainant visited the retailer’s showroom with his son and daughter-in-law and purchased garments worth Rs 4,055.

According to the complainant, he was informed only thereafter that the advertised Rs 1,500 benefit was not an immediate or unconditional benefit. Instead, three coupons of Rs 500 each would be issued, with each coupon redeemable only against a separate future purchase of at least Rs 1,500 during the next three months.

He alleged that these material restrictions were printed in extremely small and inconspicuous lettering and were not reasonably noticeable to an ordinary consumer. He further stated that the tax invoices issued by the opposite party were printed using poor-quality ink/paper and faded to the point of substantial illegibility within a few months.

The opposite party denied the allegation that the advertisement was false or misleading. According to them, the scheme was clearly disclosed, and the conditions were explained by the salesman and the cashier before completion of the purchase.

The commission noted that the attractive portion of advertisement was designed to capture immediate attention, while the decisive redemption restrictions were relegated to lettering which was not shown to be equally prominent. “In consumer advertising, what is given by the headline cannot effectively be taken away by inconspicuous fine print”, it said.

The commission held that the dominant representation in the advertisement, read with the inconspicuous and materially restrictive conditions, was likely to mislead an ordinary consumer and constituted an unfair trade practice. It further held that the failure to provide a reasonably durable invoice, or at least a legible replacement/electronic copy when the grievance was raised, constituted a deficiency in post-sale service.

The commission thus awarded the complainant Rs 1,500 as restitution equivalent to the prominently advertised benefit. It further awarded Rs 25,000 as compensation for the unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, inconvenience, mental distress and loss of time, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

It also directed the opposite party to cease and desist from publishing promotional advertisements in which the principal benefit is prominently displayed while material eligibility, minimum-purchase, redemption or validity conditions are  illegible.

Takeaway

The order highlights that the headline promise of a promotional offer cannot be materially diluted by conditions hidden in fine print. It also emphasises that consumer invoices must remain durable and legible, and retailers using fading-prone thermal paper should provide a clear duplicate or electronic copy on request.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals can contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Passengers miss flight after timing change ‘sent to wrong email’, win Rs 1.8 lakh payout

Insurer rejects claim over ‘history of high BP’, Himachal man wins Rs 2 lakh payout

Flight cancelled, family ‘forced’ to extend Goa stay, airline ordered to pay Rs 64,000