In a landmark ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central District), Delhi, has directed Emami Limited, the manufacturer of “Fair and Handsome” cream, to discontinue misleading advertisements and to pay ₹15.6 lakh in punitive damages and costs for unfair trade practices. The case (Complaint No. 53127/2013) was decided by a bench comprising Shri Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member), who found the company guilty of engaging in deceptive advertising practices.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Mr. Nikhil Jain, filed the complaint through his authorized representative, Advocate Paras Jain, asserting that the claims made by Emami regarding the efficacy of its product, “Fair and Handsome,” were unsubstantiated. Purchased for ₹79 in October 2012, the product promised significant fairness improvements within three weeks, as advertised through visuals and endorsements by prominent brand ambassadors.
Mr. Jain contended that despite using the cream as directed, he experienced no visible changes, prompting him to accuse Emami of misleading advertising and unfair trade practices under Sections 2(f) (defect) and 2(r) (unfair trade practice) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He sought corrective advertising, ₹19.9 lakh in punitive damages, and ₹10,000 as litigation costs.
Key Legal Issues and Court Observations
1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction
Emami challenged the court’s jurisdiction, citing the total claim exceeded ₹20 lakh. The court dismissed this contention, noting the complainant’s statement on limiting claims to ₹20 lakh.
2. Misleading Advertising
The court highlighted that the packaging and advertisements, including visuals and terms like “World’s No.1 Fairness Cream for Men,” created a false impression of guaranteed fairness. Despite the product’s claims, no scientific evidence or clear usage instructions were provided to substantiate the results promised.
“The OP (Opposite Party) adopted representations on packaging and advertisement that were deceptive and misleading to promote sales,” the court observed.
3. Unfair Trade Practices
The court concluded that while the product’s ingredients might have some dermatological benefits, the incomplete and misleading instructions on the packaging misled consumers. The court also noted that the Advertising Standards Council of India’s approval of the fairness claim did not absolve Emami from its obligations under consumer protection laws.
4. Expert Evidence
The company relied on an affidavit from Professor Bijan Kumar Gupta, which failed to establish definitive proof of the product’s claims. The court noted that the affidavit lacked personal opinion or empirical evidence to support the fairness claims.
Final Verdict and Directions
The court partially allowed the complaint, directing Emami to:
1. Discontinue unfair trade practices, withdraw misleading advertisements, and cease using similar promotions involving its brand ambassador.
2. Deposit ₹14.5 lakh in the Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund as punitive damages.
3. Pay ₹50,000 in damages and ₹10,000 in litigation costs to the complainant.
The court emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in product marketing to protect consumer interests, stating:
“Misleading advertisements exploit consumer trust and must be curbed decisively.”
