Unfair trade practice requires proof of hidden cost financing and consumer deception; punitive damages need a proper legal foundation.

An unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act requires cogent proof that a purported free benefit was actually financed through the transaction price and that consumers were misled about the cost structure. The discussion notes that uncorroborated newspaper reports, surveys, and conjecture are insufficient, especially where the sponsorship arrangement shows a fixed payment to the broadcaster and no established link between SMS charges and prize funding. It also states that punitive damages need a specific prayer and proof of actual loss or legal injury; absent that foundation, such damages cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contest amounted to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r)(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by creating the impression that participation was free of charge while the prize money was funded from the SMS charges; (ii) Whether the award of punitive damages could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the contest amounted to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r)(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by creating the impression that participation was free of charge while the prize money was funded from the SMS charges.

Analysis: The provision targets two distinct mischiefs, including creating the impression that something is offered free of charge when its cost is fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction. The finding of unfair trade practice depended on proof that the prize money was in fact funded from the increased SMS tariff and that the participants were misled about the cost structure. The material relied upon below, including a newspaper report and a survey, was not sufficient corroboration. The sponsorship arrangement showed that the sponsor paid a fixed amount to the broadcaster and there was no established revenue-sharing mechanism or direct linkage between the SMS charges and the prize money. The SMS facility for the contest was also treated as a value added service, and the applicable telecom direction required disclosure of the tariff, which was complied with.

Conclusion: The alleged unfair trade practice was not proved and the finding against the appellants was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the award of punitive damages could be sustained.

Analysis: Punitive damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a specific prayer and without proof of actual loss or legal injury to consumers. In any event, once the finding of unfair trade practice failed, the basis for the damages order also disappeared.

Conclusion: The award of punitive damages could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The complaint failed on the core allegation of unfair trade practice, and the consequential reliefs granted by the consumer forum could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of unfair trade practice under the provision requires cogent proof that the alleged free benefit was in fact financed through the transaction price and that consumers were thereby misled; conjecture, uncorroborated reports, and surmise are insufficient, and punitive damages cannot be awarded absent a proper foundation.

---