Archive · 2 Sep 2026
Ernakulam Commission Penalizes Retailer Over Misleading Onam Offer
An 81-year-old man saw an advertisement promising Rs 1,500 in shopping benefits.
He then bought clothes worth Rs 4,055 from a textile store.
After paying, he learned that the benefit came as three separate coupons.
Each coupon required another purchase of at least Rs 1,500 during a particular month.
The customer said these rules were hidden in very small writing.
The retailer said the offer and its rules were properly explained.
A consumer commission decided that the advertisement could mislead ordinary shoppers.
It ordered the retailer to pay Rs 31,500, including compensation and legal costs.
The commission also told the retailer to make important offer conditions easier to see.
An Ernakulam consumer commission ordered a textile retailer to pay an 81-year-old consumer Rs 31,500.
The consumer bought garments worth Rs 4,055 after seeing an advertisement promising Rs 1,500 in benefits on purchases of Rs 3,000.
The benefit consisted of three Rs 500 coupons, each requiring a separate future purchase of at least Rs 1,500.
The commission found that the restrictions were insufficiently prominent and amounted to an unfair trade practice.
The retailer was also ordered to stop using advertisements that obscure material eligibility or redemption conditions.
- Who
- An 81-year-old consumer, a textile retailer, and the Ernakulam consumer commission were involved.
- What
- The commission ordered the retailer to pay Rs 31,500 for a misleading promotional offer and an allegedly illegible invoice.
- When
- The advertisement was published on August 12, 2023; the order date is not stated.
- Where
- The advertisement concerned the retailer’s showroom in Ernakulam, Kerala.
- Why
- The commission found that the prominent Rs 1,500 promise was qualified by materially restrictive conditions shown in inconspicuous lettering, and that the invoice was not reasonably durable or legible.
Commission and Consumer
Retailer
Clarity of the promotion
Commission and Consumer
The commission and complainant said the Rs 1,500 benefit was prominently advertised, while important eligibility and redemption restrictions were hidden in small, inconspicuous lettering.
Retailer
The retailer denied that the advertisement was false or misleading and said the scheme was clearly disclosed.
Explanation before purchase
Commission and Consumer
The complainant said he learned only after purchasing that the benefit was neither immediate nor unconditional.
Retailer
The retailer said its salesman and cashier explained the conditions before the purchase was completed.
Invoice quality
Commission and Consumer
The complainant alleged that the invoices were printed with poor-quality ink or paper and became substantially illegible within months.
Retailer
The retailer disputed the broader allegations, while the commission held that a reasonably durable invoice, or a legible replacement or electronic copy, should have been provided.
- Total award
- Rs 31,500
- Restitution
- Rs 1,500
- Compensation
- Rs 25,000 for unfair trade practice, service deficiency, inconvenience, mental distress and loss of time
- Litigation costs
- Rs 5,000
- Consumer’s purchase
- Garments worth Rs 4,055
- Advertised threshold
- Shopping benefits of Rs 1,500 on a purchase of Rs 3,000
- Coupon conditions
- Three Rs 500 coupons, each requiring a separate future purchase of at least Rs 1,500 during the following three months