A consumer commission in Ernakulam has directed a textile retailer to pay Rs 31,500 to an 81-year-old consumer after finding that an Onam promotional advertisement gave a ‘misleading’ impression about a Rs 1,500 shopping benefit.President D.B. Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T.N found that the complainant was attracted to the showroom by a prominent representation that a purchase of Rs 3,000 carried shopping benefits worth Rs 1,500, but the benefit was subject to three separate future minimum purchases during specified months.“The opposite party was the author and commercial beneficiary of the advertisement. It was therefore under a duty to ensure that the prominent benefit and the accompanying eligibility and redemption conditions were presented with sufficient clarity and prominence. The omission to do so was likely to mislead an ordinary consumer and amounted to a deceptive promotional practice,” the order read.Onam offerThe 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.Story continues below this adThe 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.Story continues below this adTakeawayThe 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 payoutInsurer rejects claim over ‘history of high BP’, Himachal man wins Rs 2 lakh payoutStory continues below this adFlight cancelled, family ‘forced’ to extend Goa stay, airline ordered to pay Rs 64,000 Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express (Digital), where he specialises in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish covers court developments and key cases for the audience. Expertise Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of courts into clear, legal content. He also runs liveblogs from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More Tags:consumer court