The Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has recently penalized Emami Ltd. ₹15 lakh for unfair trade practices related to its fairness cream, Fair and Handsome.
The verdict came after a consumer complained that the product’s advertisement was deceptive and misleading.
The case dates back to 2013 when the complainant purchased the cream for ₹79, expecting the advertised promise of fairer skin. Despite regular usage as per the packaging instructions—”apply on face and neck twice daily after cleansing for faster glowing fairness”—the complainant did not see any noticeable fairness.
In its judgment, delivered by forum President Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi Bansal on December 9, the forum emphasized the incomplete and misleading claims made by Emami Ltd. The company argued that proper results depended on multiple factors, including a nutritious diet, exercise, and healthy living conditions. However, these additional conditions were not disclosed on the product’s packaging.
The forum pointed out other inconsistencies in Emami’s defense, such as the claim that the product was intended only for young men aged 16–35 and not for “sick people,” which was also not stated on the packaging.
Emami’s contention that the complainant might not have used the cream as directed was dismissed by the forum. It highlighted that the instructions on the packaging gave the impression that following them exclusively would deliver the promised fairness, making the advertisement misleading.
“The opposite party knew that the instructions provided were incomplete and insufficient to achieve the claimed results. This constitutes unfair trade practices,” the forum stated.
The forum also criticized the company’s strategy of promoting sales through deceptive packaging and advertising. However, it declined the complainant’s request for corrective advertisements, citing the time elapsed since the complaint was filed.
The forum directed Emami Ltd to cease its unfair trade practices, withdraw misleading advertisements and product labels, and deposit ₹14.50 lakh in the Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund. Additionally, the complainant was awarded ₹50,000 as punitive damages and ₹10,000 for litigation costs.
Explaining the significance of punitive damages, the forum noted, “These are meant to penalize outrageous behavior and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.”
The case had a prolonged trial history, as an earlier ruling in the complainant’s favor in 2015 was remanded by the Delhi State Consumer Commission for fresh proceedings and thorough evidence evaluation.
This ruling underscores the importance of transparent advertising and highlights consumer rights against misleading claims in the marketplace.
