Dark Mode
Image
Logo
False Discount on Biriyani Pot: Kerala Consumer Forum Slaps ₹15K Penalty on myG Future for Misleading Ad

False Discount on Biriyani Pot: Kerala Consumer Forum Slaps ₹15K Penalty on myG Future for Misleading Ad

Pranav B Prem


The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ernakulam, has directed digital retail chain myG Future to compensate a senior citizen for a misleading advertisement that falsely projected a 64% discount on a kitchen product. The Commission held that the act amounted to a “misleading advertisement” under Section 2(28) and constituted both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Also Read: Burden to Prove Breach of Duty, Injury, and Causation Lies on Claimant: NCDRC Allows Fortis Hospital's Appeal, Sets Aside State Commission's Compensation Order in Medical Negligence Case

 

The Bench, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., delivered the order on June 27, 2025, in CC No. 931 of 2023 (Manuel Vincent v. myG Future). The complaint was filed by Manuel Vincent, a 62-year-old retired teacher residing in Malippuram, Kochi. On February 11, 2023, he visited the newly inaugurated myG Future store and purchased a 10-litre biriyani pot advertised at a 64% discounted rate — with the original price shown as ₹3,299 and the offer price as ₹1,199.

 

However, upon receiving the invoice, Vincent noticed that the original price of the product was only ₹1,890, thereby exposing the advertised discount as fictitious. The inflated price in the advertisement, according to the complainant, was a deliberate attempt to deceive customers by creating a false sense of benefit. He approached the store for clarification but was allegedly treated rudely and turned away without redress. A legal notice demanding a refund and public apology was sent on February 25, 2023, but it went unanswered, prompting him to approach the Commission for justice.

 

The Commission noted that despite having been duly served with notice on January 9, 2024, the opposite party failed to appear or file a written version within the prescribed statutory period. Consequently, the matter proceeded ex parte, and the complainant's case remained uncontested.

 

Vincent submitted four documents as evidence, including a copy of the newspaper advertisement (Exhibit A1), the purchase invoice (Exhibit A2), a legal notice issued through counsel (Exhibit A3), and postal receipts evidencing dispatch of the notice (Exhibit A4). The Commission found that the complainant had acted in good faith and relied on what appeared to be a genuine promotional offer.

 

Referring to Sections 2(47), 2(11), and 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, the Commission held that the conduct of the opposite party constituted both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It further cited judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission, to assert that even technically accurate advertisements may be misleading if they deceive the consumer through presentation or omission.

 

The Commission remarked: “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. 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.”

 

Upon finding all allegations proven, the Commission passed the following directions:

 

  • Refund ₹519, the excess amount charged based on the artificially inflated discount.

  • Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and harassment.

  • Pay ₹5,000 as costs of the proceedings.

  • Refrain from issuing misleading advertisements in the future.

 

Also Read: NCDRC Sets Aside ₹37 Lakh Award to Insurance Nominee, Citing Non-Disclosure of Pre-Existing Renal Condition

 

The opposite party was granted 45 days to comply with the order, failing which 9% annual interest would be levied on the amounts awarded from the date of filing of the complaint (December 4, 2023) until full realization. Advocate Denizen Komath appeared for the complainant.

 

Appearance

For the Complainant: Adv. Denizen Komath

 

 

Cause Title: Manuel Vincent V. myG Future

Case No: CC.No. 931 of 2023 

Coram: Shri. D.B. Binu [President], Shri. V. Ramachandran [Member], Smt. Sreevidhia T.N [Member] 

Comment / Reply From

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!