TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd marketing of Horlicks, namely, Rs. 2,33,33,637 and Rs. 2,96,69,208 respectively and contrasted it with the expenditure on the prizes under the said scheme, namely, Rs. 52,250. That would have indicated fairly clearly that the appellants were right in stating that no part of the comparatively insignificant expenditure on the prizes had been recouped from the consumers of Horlicks. Thus it is difficult to hold that a consumer who bought a bottle of Horlicks that did not entitle him to a prize suffered a loss. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2939 OF 1989 - - - Dated:- 11-8-1998 - S.P. BHARUCHA AND G. B. PATTANAIK, JJ. Ashok Desai, Ravinder Narain, Aditya Narain and Manish for the Appellant. A.S. Nambiar, C.B. Babu and P. Parmeswara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor-General of Investigation of the said Commission. The notice stated that the said scheme required investigation with a view to find out whether it attracted the provisions of the said Act. It required the appellants to furnish the following information/documents within 10 days : "1. Detail note about the organisation, products manufactured and sold, composition of board of directors. 2. Date on which company took the decision to hold the Hidden Wealth Prize Scheme. 3. Details of level at which the decision was taken in the company about the contest. 4. Detail note about the "Horlicks Prize Offer" containing copies of rules and regulations, number of participant, description of winners under the scheme together with complete print ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the application, ( b ) Further such a scheme also falls under section 36A(3)( a ) in-as-much as it appears that cost of scheme has been added in price of Horlicks." To the notice of enquiry was annexed a copy of the application of the Director-General of Investigation which stated that the appellants had spent an amount of Rs. 2.92 lakhs (exclusive of cost on Administration) and which has necessarily to result in an increase in total cost of operations and which in fact shall consequently have a bearing on the price to be charged for the product or products of the company. As such, the trade practice inherently causes loss or injury to the consumers. This squarely falls within the purview of the clause( a ) of section 36A(3) as the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application of the D.G. and contained a Notice of Enquiry issued on the basis of that ? ( ii )If answer to issue No. ( i ) is in the affirmative then whether the said unfair trade practice is prejudicial to the public interest or to the interest of the consumer in general or to any consumer in parti-cular. ( iii )Relief." 7. The Commission, in the order under appeal, found from the price lists that, in respect of Horlicks and another product of the appellants called Boost, a price increase had taken place on 1-7-1985, but the prices of the appellants other products. Marmite, Pure Silvikrin, Silvikrin H.D. and Enos Salts till 31-1-1986 had remained what they were on 1-10-1984, 1.4-1984,1 -4-1984 and 1 -5-1985 respectively. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntext otherwise requires, unfair trade practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any services, adopts one or more of the following practices and thereby causes loss or injury to the consumers of such goods or services, whether by eliminating or restricting competition or otherwise, namely: ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) ****** (3) permits ( a )the offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of not providing them as offered or creating the impression that some-thing is being given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole. ( b )the conduct of any contest, lottery, game of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the application of the Director-General annexed thereto that it was nowhere indicated to the appellants that it was the case of the Director-General that the particular price increase that the Commission relied upon was intend- ed by the appellants to offset the cost of prizes under the said scheme. Had this been indicated in the notice of enquiry the appellants would have had an opportunity to deal with it. It was unfair in the circumstances to urge that the particular price increase was attributable to the cost of prizes under the said scheme and the Commission ought not to have so held. The appellants averred in their reply to the notice of enquiry that the consumer was not required to make any payment towards the prizes and there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
