New Delhi: In a move against deceptive advertising, the Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has fined Emami Rs 15 lakh for unfair trade practices. The penalty was imposed after a complaint alleged that the advertisement for the company’s Fair and Handsome cream was misleading and deceptive.
The complainant revealed that he bought the cream in 2013 for Rs 79 but did not achieve the promised fairer skin results. The forum, led by President Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi Bansal, issued its ruling on December 9.
It noted the complainant’s submissions about “using the product regularly as per instructions given on packaging and label of the product — apply on face and neck twice daily after cleansing for faster glowing fairness — but he did not gain fairness in his skin or reap other benefits.
It also noted that according to Emami Ltd, the complainant was unable to prove that he used the cream as per the instructions and so the product was not defective. The forum said there was nothing on record to help it conclude whether the complainant’s skin had become fair after using the product.
It noted the written submissions of the company that to have the desired results from a personal care product, several factors such as proper usage of the product and a proper nutritious diet, exercise, healthy habits and hygienic living conditions were required.
“Such robust conditions are not mentioned on the packaging and labelling of the product. There is another improvement in the final written arguments that the product is meant for normal young men (not sick people) between the age of 16-35 years. What does a sick person mean? This additional requirement is also not mentioned on the packaging,” the forum said.
It said Emami Ltd cannot blame the complainant by alleging that instructions were not followed. Noting the evidence before it, the forum said, “Opposite party or OP (Emami) is offering the product – Fair and Handsome cream with few, negligible and limited instructions on the packaging and labelling that its regular use for three weeks will result in fairness in skin of man.”
The consumer forum said the company knew that instructions mentioned are incomplete and for want of following the other requirements, it will not give the result claimed. It said that a reasonable or average intelligent customer could also be under a “convincing impression” that following the exclusive instructions mentioned on the cream’s packaging would give the results as claimed.
“This proves misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice that to promote product and sales, such strategy was adopted by the OP,” the forum said. It said that Emami Ltd had adopted an unfair trade practice by adopting representations – through advertisement and packaging – that were deceptive and misleading.
The forum, however, held that a corrective advertisement in newspapers was not required as the complaint was filed in 2013. It said, “The complaint is partly allowed in while directing OP to discontinue the unfair trade practice in respect of its product, to withdraw those packages, labels, advertisements either of its brand ambassador or otherwise and not to re-exhibit by mode of audio or visual or combination of both forthwith; and to deposit punitive damages of Rs 14.50 lakh.”
The amount had to be deposited in the Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund, the forum said, adding that the complainant be also paid Rs 50,000 for punitive damages along with Rs 10,000 as litigation cost.
The forum explained that punitive damages or exemplary damages were assessed and awarded in order to pinch the respondent (against whom the complaint was made) for outrageous or intolerant behaviour and to refrain or deter the respondent and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed basis of lawsuit.
“Punitive damages are also imposed to reform defaulting party as well as to deter others from indulging in such wrongs,” the forum said.
The trial in the case was protracted as in 2015, the district forum ruled in the complaint’s favour, but the Delhi state consumer commission subsequently returned the case to the forum, asking it to commence fresh proceedings by thorough evaluation of evidence. (With PTI Inputs)
