Actual consumer loss or injury was essential to classify a sales promotion contest as an unfair trade practice.

Actual loss or injury to consumers was treated as an essential element of an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(b) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The statutory language was read literally, and the phrase "and thereby causes loss or injury" was held to be integral to the definition rather than surplusage. The later deletion of those words was treated as confirming that, at the material time, consumer injury had to be proved. The interpretative approach relied on both the literal rule and the mischief rule, with the result that a contest promoting sales could not be brought within Section 36A without proof of actual consumer loss or injury.

---

---

Issues: Whether a contest conducted to promote the sale of goods amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(b) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 in the absence of proof of actual loss or injury to consumers.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the existence of a trade practice within Section 2(a), its use for promoting sale or supply of goods or services, its falling within one of the enumerated categories, and, critically, causation of loss or injury to consumers. The words "and thereby causes loss or injury" were held to be integral to the definition and not dispensable. On a plain reading, actual loss or injury was a necessary element for invoking Section 36A. The later omission of those words by amendment reinforced that, at the material time, loss or injury to consumers was a prerequisite. The interpretative approach adopted was the literal rule, with the mischief rule also supporting the conclusion that the earlier law required proof of consumer injury.

Conclusion: Actual loss or injury to consumers was essential to constitute an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(b), and the impugned finding to the contrary could not be sustained.

---