A district consumer forum in Delhi has recently imposed a ₹15 lakh fine on Emami Ltd for engaging in unfair trade practices concerning its product, Fair and Handsome fairness cream.
The complaint was filed by a consumer in 2013, alleging that the product’s claims of providing fairer skin were deceptive and misleading.
The complainant stated that he purchased the cream for ₹79 and used it as per the instructions on the packaging but did not achieve the promised fairness. The Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, led by President Inder Jeet Singh and member Rashmi Bansal, passed the verdict on December 9.
The forum reviewed the complainant’s testimony, where he explained that he applied the cream on his face and neck twice daily as instructed but saw no results. Emami Ltd argued that the complainant failed to prove he followed the instructions precisely and claimed the product was not defective.
The forum noted the company’s defense, which emphasized that achieving results depends on factors like proper usage, a nutritious diet, exercise, and a healthy lifestyle—conditions not explicitly mentioned on the product’s label. Additionally, the company argued that the product is intended for young men aged 16–35 years, excluding “sick people,” a requirement also absent from the packaging.
“This lack of transparency amounts to misleading advertising and unfair trade practices,” the forum stated. It emphasized that an average consumer could reasonably believe that following the limited instructions on the packaging would yield the claimed results. The forum concluded that Emami knowingly omitted essential details while advertising the product, deceiving consumers.
The order directed Emami Ltd to cease its unfair practices, withdraw deceptive packaging and advertisements, and refrain from similar misrepresentation in the future. The company was instructed to deposit ₹14.5 lakh as punitive damages in the Delhi State Consumer Welfare Fund and pay ₹50,000 to the complainant as compensation, along with ₹10,000 in legal costs.
The forum clarified that punitive damages aim to penalize and deter the company and others from engaging in similar unethical practices. “Such damages serve to reform defaulting parties and discourage others from committing comparable wrongs,” it stated.
The trial endured delays after a 2015 ruling in the complainant’s favor was sent back to the forum by the Delhi State Consumer Commission for a fresh evaluation of evidence. The recent judgment is seen as a significant move against misleading advertisements in the personal care industry.
