Kalyan Silks’ Rs 1,500 Onam offer ad ruled misleading; consumer court orders Rs 31,500 payout
NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Kerala has directed Kalyan Silks to pay Rs 1,500 to a customer after finding that its Onam promotional advertisement gave the misleading impression that customers spending Rs 3,000 would get shopping benefits worth Rs 1,500. The commission also awarded Rs 25,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 litigation costs, and directed the retailer to issue a durable and legible invoice. The order was passed on August 21, 2026.Why did the customer approach the commission?According to the commission order, the 81-year-old complainant saw a full-page Kalyan Silks advertisement published in a newspaper on August 12, 2023. It prominently said customers purchasing goods worth Rs 3,000 would receive shopping benefits worth Rs 1,500.The complainant visited the showroom on August 27, 2023, with his son and daughter-in-law and bought garments worth Rs 4,055. He said he was then told that the Rs 1,500 benefit was not available immediately or unconditionally.Instead, he received three Rs 500 coupons, each of which could be used only against a separate purchase of at least Rs 1,500 during September, October and November 2023. He alleged that these restrictions were printed in very small and inconspicuous letters.The complainant also alleged that the tax invoices issued by the retailer faded and became substantially unreadable within a few months. He sent a written grievance to Kalyan Silks in April 2024 but did not receive effective redress.Kalyan Silks denied that the advertisement was misleading. It said the conditions of the scheme were disclosed in the advertisement and explained by its salesman and cashier before the purchase. It also said the invoices were generated through a standard billing system.Why did the commission find the advertisement misleading?The bench of Prsident D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N noted that the prominent claim suggested an immediate Rs 1,500 shopping benefit on a Rs 3,000 purchase. But to actually use all three coupons, a customer had to make three separate purchases of at least Rs 1,500 each, involving further purchases worth at least Rs 4,500.“These were not incidental or peripheral terms. They went to the very substance of the promotional offer. The difference between an immediate shopping benefit of Rs 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 held.The commission said advertisements must be assessed from the viewpoint of an ordinary consumer and that important restrictions cannot be hidden in fine print.“The legal test is not confined to the literal truth of isolated words. The advertisement must be read as a whole and from the standpoint of the ordinary consumer. If the dominant message creates a materially erroneous impression, the presence of qualifying language in fine print does not necessarily cure the deception. The central question is the overall net impression conveyed by the advertisement in the manner in which a consumer would ordinarily encounter it,” the bench said.The commission also rejected the argument that the scheme was later explained by the salesman or cashier. It said the advertisement had already attracted the customer to the showroom and a later oral explanation could not cure a misleading representation.“A later oral explanation cannot retrospectively convert a materially misleading principal representation into a fair advertisement. Likewise, the complainant’s admission that no employee physically compelled him to purchase the goods is immaterial; proof of coercion is not an ingredient of a misleading advertisement or unfair trade practice,” the bench further added.The commission also found deficiency in service over the invoices, saying a tax invoice must remain reasonably legible and should be provided again in a durable form if the original fades.It directed Kalyan Silks to pay Rs 1,500 as restitution for the advertised benefit, Rs 25,000 compensation for unfair trade practice, inconvenience and mental distress, and Rs 5,000 towards legal costs. It also directed the retailer to issue a clear duplicate or electronic copy of the faded invoices and ensure future promotional advertisements clearly disclose all material conditions.The directions have to be complied with within 45 days. If the amounts awarded as restitution and compensation are not paid within that period, they will carry 9 percent annual interest from the date of the order until realization.
