Unfair trade practice jurisdiction fails where revised house cost estimate does not amount to false representation of services.

An increase in the estimated cost of an allotted house was held not to constitute an unfair trade practice under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, because the complaint related to immovable property and the communication was only an estimate later revised. The alleged conduct did not amount to a false representation about the standard, quality or grade of any service, and the transaction was not supply of services in the statutory sense. The complaint therefore fell outside Section 36A, and the Commission lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral increase in the estimated cost of an allotted house could be treated as an unfair trade practice under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and whether the Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Analysis: Section 36A applies only where goods are involved or where there is a provision of services, and the relevant unfair trade practice alleged here fell within the clause dealing with a false representation that services are of a particular standard, quality or grade. The complaint concerned allotment of a house, which is immovable property, and the communication to the allottee was only an estimated cost that was later revised. On these facts, there was no false representation about the standard, quality or grade of any service, and the transaction did not amount to the supply of services within the statutory sense.

Conclusion: The complaint did not fall within Section 36A and the Commission lacked jurisdiction to grant relief on that basis.

---