D P Jewellers - D P Jewellers

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Suo Motu - NAMS (TAMS)

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the objections raised in the complaint. The advertiser was offered an option to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claim in the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claim with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and submitted their response. The advertiser in their response stated that, “…… we are hereby attaching a list of all Best Jewellery Awards we have won over a period of years……. These awards have been conferred by prestigious bodies such as IJ Design Awards & Retail Jeweller India after rigorous nomination processes and jury judging…”. The advertiser submitted the following documents – (1) Website links of the awarding bodies, (2) Images of few awards, (3) Excel sheet giving the details of the award names, year of awards, name of awarding bodies, (4) Copy of email communications from awarding bodies confirming the advertiser’s winning status, (5) Photograph of the award function. As this response being inadequate, the ASCI Secretariat requested the advertiser to provide the details of the survey methodology, details of selection process for the award, and any financial transaction for participating and/or receiving such award. In the absence of this data, the advertiser was advised to withdraw the claim so that this complaint could be resolved under IR mechanism. However, the advertiser did not submit the required information within the given timelines. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the print advertisement considered the complaint and the advertiser’s response. The CCC discussed that the advertiser has shared the details of various awards received by them till 2016. The CCC observed that only few of the awards (6) were recent awards given in the past 12 months (2023-2024). The awards were given for a variety of other categories rather than the "Best Jewellery Awards" category. The advertiser did not provide proof that the old awards which had a longer validity period were still valid. The CCC further discussed that this data is by itself not sufficient evidence to support the claim. Additionally, details on the protocol/process followed by the awarding organization is required to substantiate the claim, which was not provided by the advertiser. In the absence of claim support data, the CCC concluded that the claim, “Best Jewellery Awards”, was not substantiated with supporting data such as details of the process for awards selection, criteria for granting the awards, survey methodology, parameters considered, questionnaires used, names of other Jewellers that were part of the survey, the outcome of the survey, and the details of the awarding body. The name of the organisation that has provided the award, and the month and year in which the award was pronounced was not indicated in the advertisement. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The said claim in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses I.1, I.2, and I.4 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines for Usage of Awards/Rankings in Advertisements. This complaint was UPHELD