Ernakulam Consumer Court.
Ernakulam Consumer Court Fines myG Future Over ₹15,000 for Deceptive Biriyani Pot Discount: ERNAKULAM, KERALA – In a stern rebuke against misleading advertising, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) at Ernakulam has ordered digital retail giant ‘myG Future’ to pay over ₹15,000 to a senior citizen who was duped by a false 64% discount claim on a biriyani pot. The ruling, delivered on June 27, highlights the court’s commitment to protecting consumers from deceptive trade practices, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations.
The case, Manuel Vincent v. My G Future, centered on a promotional advertisement that dramatically inflated the original price of a 10-liter biriyani pot, creating an illusory discount. DCDRC President D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. unequivocally declared that the pricing displayed in the advertisement constituted a ‘misleading advertisement’ under Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
“This case highlights the unfortunate reality faced by many unsuspecting consumers, especially senior citizens like the complainant, who place their trust in advertised offers, only to be misled and exploited,” the Commission stated in its scathing order.
READ: TVS Infrastructure Trust Raises $156 Million in Landmark IPO
The complainant, 62-year-old Manuel Vincent, a resident of Malippuram in Kochi, purchased the biriyani pot from a newly inaugurated myG Future store on February 11, 2023. His decision was directly influenced by an advertisement published in Malayala Manorama, which boldly claimed a 64% discount. The ad stated the pot’s original price was ₹3,299, being offered at a discounted price of ₹1,199.
However, the tax invoice issued to Vincent on the very same day exposed the deception: the actual original price of the product was merely ₹1,890. This revelation meant the advertised “64% discount” was a fabricated figure, designed to lure customers with an artificially inflated perceived saving.
Upon discovering the discrepancy, Vincent attempted to clarify the matter with myG Future, but he alleged that his queries were met with rude behavior. Undeterred, he escalated the matter by sending a legal notice on February 25, 2023, demanding a refund and a public apology from the retail chain. When myG Future failed to respond to the legal notice, Vincent took his case to the consumer forum, seeking appropriate compensation for the deceptive practice and the distress caused.
READ: Madras High Court Jails Advocate for Contempt Over Defying Eviction Order
Since myG Future failed to appear or respond to the DCDRC’s summons, the matter proceeded ex-parte, meaning the Commission made its decision based solely on the evidence presented by the complainant. The DCDRC accepted Vincent’s case and supporting documents as unchallenged, concluding that the act of inflating the product’s price in the advertisement constituted an ‘unfair trade practice’ under Section 2(47) and a ‘deficiency in service’ under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The Commission further emphasized that “advertising an incorrect discount amount and misleading the consumer amounts to ‘misleading advertisement’ under Section 2(28) of the Act.”
In a powerful indictment of the retail store’s conduct, the forum observed: “The complainant, acting in good faith, responded to what appeared to be a genuine promotional offer, only to discover that the discount was illusory and the pricing inflated. His experience from being enticed by a deceptive advertisement to being dismissed rudely by the store and ignored even after a legal notice reflects not just a legal wrong but a moral failure on the part of the Opposite Party. Such disregard for consumer dignity and rights undermines public confidence and calls for firm redressal to restore justice and fairness in the marketplace.”
In its final directive, the DCDRC ordered myG Future to refund ₹519, representing the excess amount collected from Vincent due to the inflated discount. Additionally, the company was directed to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for the mental agony endured by the complainant and ₹5,000 towards his legal costs.
READ: No Insurance for Legal Heirs if Driver Caused Accident by Rash Driving: Supreme Court
Beyond monetary compensation, the Commission also issued a permanent injunction, restraining myG Future from issuing such misleading advertisements in the future. The company has been granted 45 days to comply with the order. Should myG Future fail to adhere to this deadline, the DCDRC stated that an interest of 9% per annum would be imposed on the total amount, calculated from the date of filing the complaint until full payment is made.
Advocate Denizen Komath appeared for the complainant, Manuel Vincent, ensuring that justice was served in this instance of consumer exploitation.
READ: Veritas Legal Advises Raphe mPhibr on $100 Million Fundraise, Bolstering India’s Defense Tech Sector
