Promotional prize schemes and unfair trade practice require proof of consumer injury and deceptive pricing, not speculation.

A promotional prize scheme was not treated as an unfair trade practice because the statutory ingredients were not proved. The authority had to show loss or injury to consumers and, for prize-based schemes, either an intention not to provide the promised gift or a deceptive impression that the offer was free when it was partly or wholly financed through the price charged. The record did not show a draw of lots, participation for consideration, or reliable proof that prize costs had been passed on to consumers. Speculation about a prior price increase was insufficient, so the finding against the appellant could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the promotional prize scheme constituted an unfair trade practice under section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: To fall within the definition of unfair trade practice, the conduct had to satisfy the statutory ingredients of causing loss or injury to consumers and, in the case of gifts or prizes, either the intention of not providing them as offered or creating the impression of something being given free of charge though it was wholly or partly covered by the amount charged. For a lottery-based unfair trade practice, there had to be material showing a draw of lots or participation for consideration. The record did not show any draw of lots or any charge for participation. The inference that the cost of prizes had been passed on to consumers was based on speculation about a prior price increase and was unsupported by notice or proof. The burden to establish those allegations lay on the authority making them, and it had not been discharged. The insignificant expenditure on prizes, compared with the general marketing expenditure, also negatived the inference that consumers were recouping the prize cost through the price of the product. A consumer who bought a bottle without winning a prize could not, on that material, be said to have suffered loss.

Conclusion: The scheme did not amount to an unfair trade practice under section 36A, and the finding against the appellant could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A promotional prize scheme is not an unfair trade practice unless the statutory ingredients of loss or injury to consumers and the relevant deceptive or lottery element are proved by reliable material, and speculative inference of price recoupment is insufficient.

---