Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application for compensation based on unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1960 could be sustained in the absence of any averment or proof of actual or notional loss or injury to the consumer.
Analysis: For attracting section 36A read with the definition of trade practice, the existence of a trade practice, its use for promoting sale or supply, its falling within one of the statutory categories, and resulting loss or injury to consumers are required. The statutory conditions operate conjunctively, and causation of loss or injury is an essential ingredient for invoking the provision. The complaint in the present matter contained only general allegations of delay, defects, and use of old parts, but did not aver or prove any actual or notional loss or injury. The Commission also recorded no finding on that essential aspect.
Conclusion: The application was not maintainable on the facts pleaded and proved, and the compensation order could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The award of compensation was set aside and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Loss or injury to the consumer is a mandatory and conjunctive element of unfair trade practice under section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1960, and the claim must plead and establish that ingredient to sustain relief.