TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appellants were guilty of an unfair trade practice within the meaning of The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 ('the Act'). It required the appellants to desist from indulging in trade practices similar to that which had been held to be an unfair trade practice. 2. The appellants manufacture and market consumer products, including Horlicks. In September, 1985 the appellants advertised a scheme they called the 'Hidden Wealth Prize Offer'. Coupons were inserted in some bottles of Horlicks in the various pack sizes. Some of these coupons indicated that the purchase of the bottles in which they were placed would get prizes. The prizes that were offered were 5 Hotline Colour TVs, 10 gift vouchers of Rs. 2000 each for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....standard dealership agreement. 7. Price lists issued during the last 18 months including date and reasons for revisions in prices of the products including Horlicks, and 8. Copies of various incentives/discount schemes for dealers introduced in the last 2 years with detail note containing reasons therefor." 4. The requisite information was supplied by the appellants on 7-3-1986. They explained the said scheme and stated that the expenditure thereon was : "Expenditure on prizes Rs. 52,250.00 Advertisements Rs. 184,101.25 Published Material Rs. 45,312.32 Misc. Expenditure Rs. 626.55" The appellants stated that there had been no violation of the provisions of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y had been to their advantage. No loss or injury had been caused to them. They did not have to pay anything more. The price that was charged to them was the price charged elsewhere in the country. There was no increase in the price either in Delhi or elsewhere in the country by reason of the prizes given to purchasers of Horlicks bottles in Delhi city. It was stated that "the cost of giving of prizes was neither fully or partly recovered from the price charged for the bottles of Horlicks in Delhi city or in the country as a whole". The Director-General had merely resorted to conjectures and had not even alleged that the prizes were offered with the intention of creating the impression that something was being given or offered free of charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the cost of the gifts'. It said that the said scheme 'was intended to wean away the consumers from Bournvita by allurements of lucky prizes of high value rather than by fair means which may benefit the general run of the consumers'. It was a small fraction of the buyers of Horlicks who got the benefit of the said scheme whereas the multitude got no benefit. The prizes being 'manifold costlier than the price of a bottle of Horlicks, a fact on account of which the winning of the prize will be of overriding consideration than the product in question'. The Commission held, "On these postulates it is not difficult to say that the trade practice is no better than a lottery and that the buyer who does not get any prize, does lose it as against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r injury to the consumer. Insofar as prizes are concerned, there has to be the intention of not providing them as offered or creating the impression that they are being given or are being offered free of charge when in fact they are fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole. The conduct of a lottery for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of a product is an unfair trade practice. It is difficult to see clear, sustainable findings on these aspects in the judgment under appeal. 9. There is no material that indicates that there was a draw of lots or that a price was charged for participation in the draw. The fact that some bottles of Horlicks contained a slip of paper which entitled the buyer t....