Why Kalyan Silks Was Fined INR 31,500 Over an Onam Shopping Advertisement

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Kalyan Silks to pay INR 31,500 to a customer after ruling that an Onam promotional advertisement promising shopping benefits was misleading. The consumer court found that the promotional campaign constituted an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service.

Misleading Promotional Offer

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by 81-year-old RTI and consumer protection activist Venugopala Pillai PV, reports Bar and Bench. In August 2023, Kalyan Silks published a full-page newspaper advertisement offering INR 1,500 in shopping benefits on purchases totaling INR 3,000. Muslim Man Having S*x With Minor Wife Liable Under POCSO Act: Kerala High Court.

Attracted by the promotion, Pillai and his family visited the showroom and purchased garments worth INR 4,055. At checkout, however, they were informed that the INR 1,500 benefit would be distributed across three separate coupons of INR 500 each. Utilising these coupons required making three distinct future purchases of at least INR 1,500 each during the subsequent months of September, October, and November 2023, effectively requiring the customer to spend an additional INR 4,500 to redeem the full offer.

Consumer Commission's Ruling

A Bench led by President DB Binu, alongside members V Ramachandran and Sreevidhia TN, observed that while the INR 1,500 benefit was prominently displayed, the material conditions were kept in inconspicuous fine print. "In consumer advertising, what is given by the headline cannot effectively be taken away by inconspicuous fine print. The principal claim and the material conditions must convey the same commercial proposition," the commission stated in its August 21 order.

The panel rejected Kalyan Silks' defense that the terms had been explained by staff prior to payment or printed elsewhere, noting that a subsequent oral explanation cannot retroactively correct a misleading headline once the customer is already in the store. The commission cited Sections 2(28) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which govern misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices.

Invoice Deficiencies and Directives

Beyond the promotional dispute, the commission also upheld a complaint regarding the quality of the billing records. The tax invoices issued by the store faded and became unreadable within months, which the bench flagged as a service deficiency. "A tax invoice is not a disposable token. It is a transactional record that may be required by a consumer for warranty claims, returns, taxation, accounting, complaints and proof of purchase," the bench noted. Malayalam Actress Assault Case: Kerala High Court Warns State Over Delay in Dileep-Linked ‘Media Trial’ Probe.

Consequently, the commission ordered Kalyan Silks to pay INR 1,500 for the unfulfilled benefit, INR 25,000 as compensation for mental distress, inconvenience, and unfair trade practices, and INR 5,000 toward litigation costs. The firm was further instructed to issue clear duplicate copies of the invoices to the complainant, ensure legible and durable billing materials for future transactions, and prominently display all material conditions in all upcoming promotional campaigns.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Sep 01, 2026 07:41 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).