Alok Singh
On 27 June 2025, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ernakulam issued its final order in Manuel Vincent v. My G Future. It reaffirms the legal and ethical duty of businesses to maintain honesty in their marketing practices.
The complainant had purchased a 10-litre biryani pot from the store of My G Future, lured by a newspaper advertisement claiming a 64% discount on a product allegedly priced at ₹3,299. However, the tax invoice showed that the actual market price was only ₹1,890, indicating that the real discount was much lower than advertised. When the complainant sought clarification, the store staff reacted with hostility and did not provide any resolution, even after a legal notice was issued.
The Commission found the conduct of the opposite party, a case of misleading advertisement, constituted both unfair trade practice [Section 2(47)] and deficiency in service [Section 2(11)] under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Notably, the Commission held that the failure to respond to notices and the absence of any defence amounted to an admission of guilt.
In its order, the Commission had directed a refund of ₹519 (the excess amount paid) and awarded ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony. Further, it granted ₹5,000 towards litigation costs and restrained the trader from issuing misleading advertisements in the future.
The commission cited the Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. MRTP Commission (1989) 3 SCC 251 , order emphasised that even technically accurate advertisements can be misleading if they create a false impression in the mind of an average consumer.
Click here to access the order.
Case Name: Manuel Vincent v. My G Future
Case Number: CC No. 931 of 2023
Bench: Shri D.B. Binu, Shri V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N.
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
