MAM
ASCI got 1000+ complaints against misleading advertising for Department of Consumer Affairs
MUMBAI: Last year, the Department of Consumer Affairs (DoCA) had appointed the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) to monitor web portal www.gama.gov.in – GAMA being an acronym for “Grievances Against Misleading Advertisements”.
GAMA was launched on 18 March 2015 and has received over 1000 complaints till date. ASCI claims that all GAMA complaints have been diligently processed it in a media release. A majority of these complaints came from individual consumers as well as few consumer organizations like the Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC). The portal received complaints against advertisements of products and services from almost all sectors (telecom, banking, consumer durables, etc. and emerging sectors like e-Commerce) across a range of advertising media (TV, print, web-sites, other digital mediums, etc.). Some of the well-known brands’ advertisements which were complained against were processed by ASCI via GAMA portal and the complaints were upheld by the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC). In all those cases the advertisers either withdrew the advertisements or modified them as appropriate within the stipulated period and compliance to the CCC decisions was assured.
Commenting on the success of GAMA portal, Department of Consumer Affairs secretary C.Viswanath said, “The problem of misleading advertisements is extensive and needs immediate attention. Launch of the GAMA portal is helping us to accomplish the vision we have towards protecting consumers’ interest. The need for the government and a self-regulatory body like ASCI to work together to provide effective and timely grievance redressal to consumers is key to tackle the issue. This model successfully demonstrates “More governance and less government.”
Speaking on behalf of ASCI, its chairman Benoy Roychowdhury added, “ASCI was entrusted with the responsibility of GAMA complaints processing. I am very happy that ASCI has been able to speedily address all 1000 plus complaints received till date. This co-regulation initiative between the government and ASCI, has further enhanced effectiveness of protecting consumers from advertisements which could be making misleading, false or unsubstantiated claims. We wish GAMA, entering its second year, greater success.”
The complaints of misleading advertisements received on GAMA portal, are handled in a three tier system. First complaints are processed by ASCI, the second level of escalation in case of non-compliance to a sub-committee headed by the joint secretary DoCA, under Inter Ministerial Monitoring Committee (IMMC) and in the end, the concerned regulator empowered by law to take action in case of persistent offenders.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
