Unfair trade practice requires cogent evidence of consumer injury before a prize scheme can sustain a cease and desist order.

A prize scheme used to promote detergent sales was analysed under the definition of unfair trade practice in Section 36A(3)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The text explains that a promotional practice alone is insufficient; there must also be cogent material showing consumer injury, or a likely effect on competition or consumers within the statutory scheme. It further notes that a cease and desist order with penal consequences cannot rest on a bare complaint or on an assumption that prize costs were built into product price without supporting evidence. The finding under Section 36A(3)(a) was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prize scheme floated for promotion of detergent sales amounted to an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and whether the Commission could sustain a cease and desist order on the basis of the complaint alone without cogent supporting material.

Analysis: The scheme was examined under the statutory definition of unfair trade practice, which requires not only the adoption of one of the listed promotional practices but also a consequential loss or injury to consumers, whether by elimination or restriction of competition or otherwise. A finding under that provision, especially one attracting penal consequences through a cease and desist order, cannot rest on a bare complaint or an assumption that prize money was necessarily built into the product price. Some material was required to support the inference that the increase in price was a device to cover the prizes, and the company had not been given a proper opportunity to produce evidence on that aspect. The earlier finding under Section 36A(3)(b) having already attained finality, only the sustainability of the finding under Section 36A(3)(a) remained in issue.

Conclusion: The finding that the scheme constituted an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(a) was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Commission for fresh disposal after permitting both sides to lead evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of unfair trade practice under Section 36A(3)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 cannot be sustained without cogent material showing that the impugned promotional practice caused or was likely to cause consumer injury within the statutory scheme.

---