Deficiency in cargo service is not unfair trade practice absent false or misleading representation under the MRTP Act.

Mere deficiency in carriage of cargo does not amount to an unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 unless false, misleading, or deceptive representation is specifically alleged and proved. Section 36A applies only where the conduct involves statements or representations that misdescribe the service or project qualities or performance it does not possess. As the record showed only delay, loss, or deficient service, and no false claim or misleading statement by the carrier, the statutory ingredients were not satisfied. The finding of unfair trade practice was therefore unsustainable and the direction to stop such practice was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether mere deficiency in service in the carriage of cargo, without any allegation or proof of false or misleading representation, can be treated as an unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 targets unfair or deceptive trade practices involving statements or representations that are false, misleading, or that project services as having qualities, benefits, or performance they do not in fact possess. For a finding of unfair trade practice, the impugned conduct must satisfy the statutory ingredients of false statement or misleading representation made for promoting goods or services. The record contained allegations only of delay, loss, or deficiency in carriage service, and not of any false claim, deceptive statement, or misleading representation by the carrier. The Commission therefore could not convert a claim for deficient service into a finding of unfair trade practice, especially where the essential statutory elements were neither pleaded nor proved.

Conclusion: The finding of unfair trade practice was unsustainable; the order directing cessation of such practice was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A deficiency in service, by itself, does not amount to an unfair trade practice unless the statutory ingredients of false or misleading representation under section 36A are specifically alleged and established.

---