In order to constitute an unfair trade practice under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, it is necessary to establish that the trade practice concerned falls within one or more of the trade practices mentioned in Sub-sections (1) to (5) thereof and that such trade practice causes loss or injury to consumers of goods or services either by eliminating or restricting competition or otherwise.

S.P. Kurdukar, J. — This appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act') is filed by the appellant challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated January 4,1996 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the Commission’). The appellant has suffered an order of 'cease and desist' under Section 36-D of the Act for having indulged in unfair trade practices under Section 36A(3)(a) of the Act.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under:

The appellant a public limited company (for short 'the company') having its registered office at Ahmedabad, is engaged in manufacture and sale of Nirma washing powder, Nirma detergent cakes and Nirma bath soaps. The Company has been manufacturing these products since early seventies and its products are marketed and sold all over the country. It is the claim of the appellant that having established a good market for sale of its various products and having captured the confidence of the consumers, thought of offering a scheme as an incentive to the consumers for its products. The appellant, therefore, on April 25,1991, floated a scheme of awarding and distributing of prizes through a lottery. According to the scheme, the appellant placed a coupon bearing a number in each one kg. pack of detergent/washing powder. The said scheme was valid till July 31,1991 and the draw of lots was to be Held on August 30,1991. The coupon kept in the one kg. bag of detergent mentioned that prizes worth Rs. 71 lacs were to be distributed which included Contessa Car, Maruti 800 Car, BPL TV set, golden chain, Titan watch. Steel jug, ladies purse, steel bowl set and cash.

3. On July 24, 1991, a complaint was received by the D.G. (I & R) from Azad Singh, New Delhi, alleging, inter alia, that the Company while floating a scheme in question did not inform the customer as to in which newspaper the result would be published; the Company had increased the price of the detergent alongwith prize scheme; the said scheme is harming the interest of the other companies in this competition and the condition of the coupon is so bad that while opening the bag, it would get torn and the winner of the prize will have to face difficulty in getting the prize which would help the Company in evading the responsibility to give the prize. Azad Singh, therefore, prayed that action be taken against the Company and "save the poor people being robbed” The D.G. very promptly responded to the complaint of Azad Singh and filed an application on July 26,1991 before the Commission for investigation and registration of the complaint under Section 36B(c) of the Act. The D.G. requested the Commission to hold an inquiry into the unfair trade practices under Section 36D(I) of the Act and pass an order of cease and desist against the Company. It was alleged in the complaint that the scheme in question floated by the Company was with a view to promote the sale of its detergent powder; that it lured the customers to purchase more and more Nirma detergent powder under the temptation of getting the prizes; that this trade practice of offering prizes would lead to excessive purchases and consumption by the customers in the expectation of getting prizes; that such avoidable and the excessive purchases were real loss to the consumers and that it had deleterious impact on competition inasmuch as extraneous consideration other than quality and the price of the product tend to determine the consumer preference; that there are several detergent manufacturers in India; that the impugned scheme of the respondent affected, distorted and restricted competition among the various manufacturers of detergent powder and that the conduct of lottery or game of chance for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of detergent powder by the appellant amounted to an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A(3)(a) and (b