Unfair trade practice in investment advertising established where false promises induced deposits and compensation followed for proved financial loss.

False and misleading investment advertisements promising to double invested money, coupled with acceptance of funds through a formal arrangement and dishonour of the first cheque for insufficiency of funds, fell within the statutory concept of unfair trade practice under clauses (iv) and (viii) of section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The material showed inducement to invest without any intention to honour the promise, supporting liability for the practice. Compensation was allowed for proved pecuniary loss on the documentary record, with interest and costs, but the claim for mental agony was rejected for want of reliable evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's investment advertisement and conduct amounted to an unfair trade practice attracting clauses (iv) and (viii) of section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for the loss suffered.

Analysis: The respondent issued advertisements promising that invested money would be doubled and accepted the applicant's money on the basis of a formal arrangement supported by post-dated cheques and fixed deposit cover. The first cheque, though due for payment after the fixed deposit had matured, was not honoured and was returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds. The uncontroverted material showed false and misleading representations made to induce investment without any intention to fulfil the promise, thereby falling within the statutory concept of unfair trade practice. On the compensation claim, the applicant's pecuniary loss was supported by the documentary record and the earlier finding on the nature of the trade practice, but the claim for mental agony was unsupported by reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The respondent was held to have engaged in an unfair trade practice, and the applicant was awarded compensation for proved financial loss with interest and costs, while the claim for mental agony was rejected.

---