{"id":7322,"date":"2010-11-11T10:12:43","date_gmt":"2010-11-11T10:12:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/2010\/11\/11\/%e0%a4%87%e0%a4%a8-%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%82%e0%a4%aa%e0%a4%a8%e0%a4%bf%e0%a4%af%e0%a5%8b%e0%a4%82-%e0%a4%95%e0%a5%8b-%e0%a4%a0%e0%a4%97-%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%b9%e0%a5%87%e0%a4%82-%e0%a4%af%e0%a4%be-%e0%a4%b2\/"},"modified":"2010-11-11T10:12:43","modified_gmt":"2010-11-11T10:12:43","slug":"%e0%a4%87%e0%a4%a8-%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%82%e0%a4%aa%e0%a4%a8%e0%a4%bf%e0%a4%af%e0%a5%8b%e0%a4%82-%e0%a4%95%e0%a5%8b-%e0%a4%a0%e0%a4%97-%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%b9%e0%a5%87%e0%a4%82-%e0%a4%af%e0%a4%be-%e0%a4%b2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/%e0%a4%87%e0%a4%a8-%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%82%e0%a4%aa%e0%a4%a8%e0%a4%bf%e0%a4%af%e0%a5%8b%e0%a4%82-%e0%a4%95%e0%a5%8b-%e0%a4%a0%e0%a4%97-%e0%a4%95%e0%a4%b9%e0%a5%87%e0%a4%82-%e0%a4%af%e0%a4%be-%e0%a4%b2\/","title":{"rendered":"\u0907\u0928 \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u093f\u092f\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u094b \u0920\u0917 \u0915\u0939\u0947\u0902 \u092f\u093e \u0932\u0941\u091f\u0947\u0930\u0940?"},"content":{"rendered":"

: \u092c\u093f\u0902\u0917\u094b \u0914\u0930 \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0932\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u094d\u091f \u0938\u094d\u091f\u093f\u0915\u094d\u0938 \u0928\u0947 \u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u0915\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u091b\u0932 \u0915\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u094b\u0921\u093c\u094b\u0902 \u0930\u0941\u092a\u092f\u0947 \u092c\u091f\u094b\u0930\u0947 <\/strong>: \u0928\u0947\u0936\u0928\u0932 \u0915\u0902\u091c\u094d\u092f\u0942\u092e\u0930 \u0921\u093f\u0938\u094d\u092a\u094d\u092f\u0942\u091f\u094d\u0938 \u0930\u093f\u0921\u094d\u0930\u0947\u0938\u0932 \u0915\u092e\u0940\u0936\u0928 \u0928\u0947 \u0939\u093e\u0932 \u0939\u0940 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0932\u0947 \u092c\u093f\u0938\u094d\u0915\u0941\u091f\u094d\u0938 \u0932\u093f\u092e\u093f\u091f\u0947\u0921 \u0915\u094b \u0909\u0928\u0915\u0947 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u2018\u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0932\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u094d\u091f \u0938\u094d\u091f\u093f\u0915\u094d\u0938\u2019 \u0924\u0925\u093e \u0906\u0908.\u091f\u0940.\u0938\u0940. \u0932\u093f\u092e\u093f\u091f\u0947\u0921 \u0915\u094b \u0909\u0928\u0915\u0947 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u2018\u092c\u093f\u0902\u0917\u094b \u091f\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u093e\u0932\u093e \u0924\u0921\u0958\u093e\u2019 \u0915\u0940 \u092c\u093f\u0915\u094d\u0930\u0940 \u092c\u0922\u093c\u093e\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u092d\u094d\u0930\u093e\u092e\u0915 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928 \u0926\u0947\u0928\u0947 \u0924\u0925\u093e \u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u0915\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u091b\u0932 \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u0906\u0930\u094b\u092a \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u093e \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0930\u0916\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u093e \u0928\u094b\u091f\u093f\u0938 \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964<\/p>\n

\u092f\u0939 \u0928\u094b\u091f\u093f\u0938 \u0926\u093f\u0932\u094d\u0932\u0940 \u0915\u0940 \u090f\u0915 \u0935\u0915\u0940\u0932 \u091c\u093e\u0939\u094d\u0928\u0935\u0940 \u0935\u094b\u0930\u093e \u0915\u0940 \u0905\u092a\u0940\u0932 \u0915\u0947 \u092b\u0932\u0938\u094d\u0935\u0930\u0942\u092a \u091c\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0939\u0941\u0906 \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0938\u0928\u094d 2009 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0932\u0947 \u0928\u0947 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u0947 \u091f\u0940\u0935\u0940 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0926\u093e\u0935\u093e \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093f \u2018\u091c\u094b \u092a\u0948\u0938\u093e \u0939\u092e \u0907\u0928\u0915\u0940 \u090f\u0921\u0935\u0930\u091f\u093e\u0907\u091c\u093f\u0902\u0917 \u092a\u0930 \u0916\u0930\u094d\u091a \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093e\u0932\u0947 \u0925\u0947, \u0939\u092e\u0928\u0947 \u0938\u094b\u091a\u093e \u0915\u094d\u092f\u094b\u0902 \u0928 \u0935\u0939 \u0906\u092a\u0915\u094b \u091c\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0926\u093e \u0938\u094d\u0928\u0948\u0915 \u0926\u0947\u0928\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0932\u0917\u093e \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u090f\u2019 \u0914\u0930 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0906\u0917\u0947 \u0915\u0939\u093e \u0917\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093f\u00a0 \u2018\u091f\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0908 \u0915\u0940\u091c\u093f\u090f \u0914\u0930 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u093f\u090f, \u0938\u0947\u092e \u092a\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0907\u0938 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0947 \u092e\u0941\u0915\u093e\u092c\u0932\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0939\u092e\u093e\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u093e\u0938 \u0939\u0948 50% \u091c\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0926\u093e \u0915\u094d\u0935\u093e\u0902\u091f\u093f\u091f\u0940\u2019\u0964 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0932\u093e\u0935\u093e, \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0932\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u094d\u091f \u0938\u094d\u091f\u093f\u0915\u094d\u0938 \u0915\u0947 \u0939\u0930 \u092a\u0948\u0915\u0947\u091f \u092a\u0930 \u092d\u0940\u00a0 \u201850% \u090f\u0915\u094d\u0938\u094d\u091f\u094d\u0930\u093e\u2019 \u091b\u093e\u092a\u093e \u0917\u092f\u093e\u0964 \u0926\u0938\u094d\u0924\u093e\u0935\u0947\u091c\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u092f\u0939 \u092d\u0940 \u0938\u093f\u0926\u094d\u0927 \u0939\u0941\u0906 \u0915\u093f \u0907\u0938 \u0935\u0930\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u0940 \u0928\u0947 \u0930\u0941.9274.22 \u0932\u093e\u0916 \u0915\u093e \u0932\u093e\u092d \u0915\u092e\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0964<\/p>\n

\u0907\u0938\u0940 \u0926\u094c\u0930\u093e\u0928 \u0906\u0908.\u091f\u0940.\u0938\u0940. \u0932\u093f\u092e\u093f\u091f\u0947\u0921 \u0928\u0947 \u092d\u0940 \u2018\u092c\u093f\u0902\u0917\u094b \u091f\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u093e\u0932\u093e \u0924\u0921\u0958\u093e\u2019 \u0915\u0947 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 50% \u091c\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0926\u093e \u0915\u094d\u0935\u093e\u0902\u091f\u093f\u091f\u0940 \u0915\u093e \u0926\u093e\u0935\u093e \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0924\u0925\u093e \u0919\u094d\u0915\u094d\u0937\u092c\u0917\u094b \u091f\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u093e\u0932\u093e \u0924\u0921\u0958\u093e \u0915\u0947 \u0939\u0930 \u092a\u0948\u0915\u0947\u091f \u092a\u0930 \u092d\u0940\u00a0 \u201850% \u090f\u0915\u094d\u0938\u094d\u091f\u094d\u0930\u093e\u2019\u00a0 \u091b\u093e\u092a\u093e \u0924\u093e\u0915\u093f \u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u0915 \u0906\u0915\u0930\u094d\u0937\u093f\u0924 \u0939\u094b \u0938\u0915\u0947\u0902 \u0914\u0930 \u0909\u0928\u0915\u0947 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u0915\u0940 \u092c\u093f\u0915\u094d\u0930\u0940 \u092c\u0922\u093c\u0947\u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u0935\u0930\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u0940 \u0915\u093e \u0915\u0941\u0932 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928 \u092c\u091c\u091f \u0939\u0940 \u0930\u0941.502.30 \u0915\u0930\u094b\u0921\u093c \u0915\u093e \u0930\u0939\u093e\u0964 \u0917\u0921\u093c\u092c\u0921\u093c \u0938\u093f\u0930\u094d\u092b \u092f\u0939 \u0939\u0941\u0908 \u0915\u093f \u0907\u0928 \u0926\u093e\u0935\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u092d\u093e\u0935\u093f\u0924 \u0939\u094b\u0915\u0930 \u0907\u0928 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u094b \u0916\u0930\u0940\u0926\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093e\u0932\u0947 \u0926\u0947\u0936 \u092d\u0930 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092b\u0948\u0932\u0947 \u0932\u093e\u0916\u094b\u0902 \u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u0915\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u090f\u0915 \u0938\u0941\u0936\u094d\u0930\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0939\u094d\u0928\u0935\u0940 \u0935\u094b\u0930\u093e \u092a\u0947\u0936\u0947 \u0938\u0947 \u0935\u0915\u0940\u0932 \u0939\u0948\u0902 \u0914\u0930 \u0909\u0928\u0915\u0947 \u0926\u093f\u092e\u093e\u0917 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0915\u0940\u0921\u093c\u093e \u0915\u0941\u0932\u092c\u0941\u0932\u093e\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093f \u201850% \u090f\u0915\u094d\u0938\u094d\u091f\u094d\u0930\u093e\u2019 \u0915\u0947 \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u0940 \u0915\u0947 \u0926\u093e\u0935\u0947 \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0902\u091a-\u092a\u0921\u093c\u0924\u093e\u0932 \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0964<\/p>\n

\u0907\u0938\u0915\u0947 \u092c\u093e\u0926 \u0935\u0947 \u0926\u094b\u092c\u093e\u0930\u093e \u092c\u093e\u091c\u093e\u0930 \u0917\u0908\u0902 \u0914\u0930 \u0909\u0928\u094d\u0939\u094b\u0902\u0928\u0947 \u092c\u093f\u0902\u0917\u094b \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0932\u093e\u0935\u093e \u0905\u0928\u094d\u092f \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u092f\u094b\u0917\u0940 \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u093f\u092f\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0947 \u092e\u093f\u0932\u0924\u0947 \u091c\u0941\u0932\u0924\u0947 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u092f\u093e\u0928\u0940, \u0915\u0941\u0930\u0915\u0941\u0930\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u093e\u0932\u093e \u092e\u0902\u091a, \u092f\u0947\u0932\u094b \u0921\u093e\u092f\u092e\u0902\u0921 \u0906\u0926\u093f \u092d\u0940 \u0916\u0930\u0940\u0926\u0947\u0964 \u0907\u0938 \u0926\u094c\u0930\u093e\u0928 \u090f\u0915 \u0914\u0930 \u0924\u0925\u094d\u092f \u092f\u0939 \u092d\u0940 \u0938\u093e\u092e\u0928\u0947 \u0906\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093f \u0907\u0938 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928 \u0938\u0947 \u092a\u0942\u0930\u094d\u0935 \u092c\u093f\u0902\u0917\u094b \u091f\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u093e\u0932\u093e \u0924\u0921\u0958\u093e \u0928\u093e\u092e \u0915\u093e \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u092c\u093e\u091c\u093e\u0930 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0909\u092a\u0932\u092c\u094d\u0927 \u0939\u0940 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0925\u093e, \u092f\u093e\u0928\u0940, \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u0940 \u0928\u0947 \u090f\u0915 \u0928\u092f\u093e \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u0924\u0948\u092f\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0914\u0930 \u0909\u0938\u0947 \u092c\u093e\u091c\u093e\u0930 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u0947\u0936 \u0915\u0930\u0924\u0947 \u0938\u092e\u092f \u0909\u0938 \u092a\u0930 \u201850% \u090f\u0915\u094d\u0938\u094d\u091f\u094d\u0930\u093e\u2019 \u0915\u093e \u0920\u092a\u094d\u092a\u093e \u092d\u0940 \u091c\u0921\u093c \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e\u0964<\/p>\n

\u0938\u0941\u0936\u094d\u0930\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0939\u094d\u0928\u0935\u0940 \u0935\u094b\u0930\u093e \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0902\u091a-\u092a\u0921\u093c\u0924\u093e\u0932 \u0938\u0947 \u092f\u0939 \u0938\u093f\u0926\u094d\u0927 \u0939\u094b \u0917\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093f \u0926\u094b\u0928\u094b\u0902 \u092c\u0939\u0941\u0930\u093e\u0937\u094d\u091f\u094d\u0930\u0940\u092f \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u093f\u092f\u093e\u0902 \u092d\u094d\u0930\u093e\u092e\u0915 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928\u094b\u0902 \u0924\u0925\u093e \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u0915\u0947 \u092a\u0948\u0915\u0947\u091f \u092a\u0930 \u0917\u0932\u0924 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u091b\u093e\u092a\u0915\u0930 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u0947 \u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u0915\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u091b\u0932 \u0915\u0930 \u0930\u0939\u0940 \u0925\u0940\u0902\u0964 \u0938\u0941\u0936\u094d\u0930\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0939\u094d\u0928\u0935\u0940 \u0928\u0947 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u0940 \u092c\u093e\u0924 \u0938\u093f\u0926\u094d\u0927 \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0928\u0947\u0936\u0928\u0932 \u0915\u0902\u091c\u094d\u092f\u0942\u092e\u0930 \u0921\u093f\u0938\u094d\u092a\u094d\u092f\u0942\u091f\u094d\u0938 \u0930\u093f\u0921\u094d\u0930\u0947\u0938\u0932 \u0915\u092e\u0940\u0936\u0928 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0926\u094b\u0928\u094b\u0902 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0947 \u0938\u093e\u0925-\u0938\u093e\u0925 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u092f\u094b\u0917\u0940 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0947 \u092c\u093f\u0932 \u0914\u0930 \u0930\u0948\u092a\u0930 \u092d\u0940 \u092a\u0947\u0936 \u0915\u093f\u092f\u0947\u0964 \u0906\u092f\u094b\u0917 \u0928\u0947 \u0909\u0928\u0915\u0947 \u0924\u0930\u094d\u0915 \u0915\u094b \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0940\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0924\u0947 \u0939\u0941\u090f \u0926\u094b\u0928\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u093f\u092f\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u094b \u0905\u092a\u0928\u093e \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0926\u0947\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u093e \u0928\u094b\u091f\u093f\u0938 \u091c\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0915\u0930 \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0906\u0908\u091f\u0940\u0938\u0940 \u0914\u0930 \u092a\u093e\u0930\u0932\u0947 \u0915\u0902\u092a\u0928\u093f\u092f\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0947 \u0916\u093f\u0932\u093e\u092b \u0926\u093e\u092f\u0930 \u092f\u093e\u091a\u093f\u0915\u093e\u090f\u0902 \u0914\u0930 \u0906\u092f\u094b\u0917 \u0926\u094d\u0935\u093e\u0930\u093e \u091c\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0906\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u0928\u0940\u091a\u0947 \u0926\u093f\u090f \u091c\u093e \u0930\u0939\u0947 \u0939\u0948\u0902…<\/p>\n

BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI<\/p>\n

IN THE MATTER OF:<\/p>\n

JAHANVI WORAH,
Q-19B, JUNGPURA EXTN.,<\/p>\n

NEW DELHI – 110014<\/p>\n

\u2026 APPELLANT<\/p>\n

VERSUS<\/p>\n

ITC LTD.
37, J.L. NEHRU ROAD,
KOLKATA 700071,<\/p>\n

WEST BENGAL.<\/p>\n

\u2026 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 21(a)(ii) OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.<\/p>\n

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:<\/p>\n

1. The Appellant is seeking to file the present appeal being aggrieved by an order dated May 14, 2010 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u201cState Commission\u201d) in Case No. C-10\/39 (\u201cimpugned order\u201d), certified by the Registry of the State Commission on June 21, 2010 and communicated to the Appellant on June 24, 2010, dismissing in limine the Appellant\u2019s complaint by refusing to exercise its jurisdiction inspite of the fact that the complaint duly disclosed commission of unfair trade practices, by holding, inter-alia, that the Appellant should approach MRTP Commission for the said grievance, despite the fact the MRTP Commission has since been wound up and the MRTP Act repealed with effect from September 01, 2009.\u00a0\u00a0 Certified copy of the impugned order is being filed herewith.<\/p>\n

2. The State Commission has further held in the impugned order that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (\u201cthe Act\u201d) that is in pari materia with Section 36-A of the MRTP Act, for conducting any enquiry into unfair trade practices under the Act.\u00a0 This finding is clearly contrary to the admitted legal position that Section 36-A of the MRTP Act had contained definition of \u201cUnfair trade practice\u201d that was borrowed and incorporated by amendment of Section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18-06-1993.<\/p>\n

3. In fact the findings rendered by the State Commission run contrary to not only the statutory provisions but the legislative intent in enacting the Consumer Protection Act and amendments thereto so as to empower the Fora under the Act to look into the complaints of unfair trade practices.\u00a0 It is respectfully submitted that the scope and purview of jurisdiction of the Fora under the Act is not confined to complaints for defects in goods and deficiency in service as was originally contemplated when the Act was enacted, but has since been expanded by several amendments thereto so as to include, inter-alia, complaints for restrictive trade practices and unfair trade practices.\u00a0 The amendments in the years 1993 and 2002 to the definition of\u00a0\u00a0 \u201ccomplaint\u201d in section 2 (1) (c) of the Act bear testimony to the above.\u00a0 Clearly, the State Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.<\/p>\n

4. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been made inspite of the order of this Hon\u2019ble Commission dated November 13, 2009 in Complaint No. 176 of 2009 granting liberty to approach appropriate forum and on a total misinterpretation and misreading of the said order.<\/p>\n

5. The said earlier complaint No. 176 of 2009 filed before this Hon\u2019ble Commission was allowed to be withdrawn at the stage of admission on November 13, 2009 with liberty to file the same before an appropriate forum as this Hon\u2019ble Commission was of the view during the course of hearing that the amount of compensation should be reduced.\u00a0 True copy of the said order dated November 13, 2009 of this Hon\u2019ble Commission is annexed hereto and marked Annexure A.<\/p>\n

6. In fact, the Appellant had filed another complaint before this Hon\u2019ble Commission with additional material being Complaint No. 17 of 2010, which was not entertained by this Hon\u2019ble Commission on January 27, 2010 and the liberty granted vide order dated November 13, 2009 was maintained.\u00a0 True copy of the said order dated January 27, 2010 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure B.<\/p>\n

7. It was thereafter that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Hon\u2019ble Court that the Appellant had filed the said complaint before the State Commission.<\/p>\n

8. The impugned order is also based on the following principal findings, all of which, in the respectful submission of the Appellant, are contrary to the indubitable facts and settled law, which make the same unsustainable and untenable. The impugned order is also contrary to the substantive provisions of law and is based on fundamentally erroneous legal propositions, which go to the root of the matter. The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has therefore acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.<\/p>\n

i. The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has held that the Respondent had not published any advertisement claiming their product or brand name to be the same as that of other manufacturers. That being the case, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission has held that the advertisement published by the Respondent is not misleading. The aforesaid finding, however, clearly ignores the indubitable facts pleaded by the Appellant in its Complaint. Pertinently, the Appellant at no point in time pleaded that the brand name of the product sold by the Respondent was similar to the ones sold by the other manufacturers as named in the Complaint. On the contrary, it was the Appellant\u2019s case that since the product sold by the Respondent was the same as that of other manufacturers, the claim made by the Respondent on the packets of its product regarding \u201c50% extra\u201d was clearly misleading; when in fact, it did not have \u201c50% extra\u201d as compared to similar products of other manufacturers.\u00a0 It was therefore the Appellant\u2019s case that by making such false representations, the Respondent had attempted to deceive consumers across the country by printing false information on the packets of the Product by way of its promotional methods. The aforesaid indubitable facts have been clearly ignored by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

ii. The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has further held that even the claim of \u201850% extra\u2019 made by the Respondent on its packets is not false or misleading since it has not been alleged that the same product being sold earlier was not of the same weight or not less than 50% as claimed by the Respondent. In this regard, the Appellant submits that before filing the Complaint, it attempted to find out from the market the weight of the packets of Bingo Tedhe Medhe Masala Tadka of the Respondent priced at an MRP of Rs. 10\/- prior to the introduction of the packs of the Product that contained an inscription on the wrapper that it had 50% extra. However, the Appellant could not find any trace in the market of the packs of the Product prior to the introduction of packs with 50% extra and being sold at an MRP of Rs. 10\/-. It was thus apparent that the claim of 50% extra on the wrapper of the Product was false, baseless and misleading. Clearly the Respondent had made a false statement on the wrappers of the packets of the Product to mislead the innocent consumers. The Appellant submits that the aforesaid was categorically pleaded by it in its Complaint before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission and therefore, the finding arrived at by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission in clear disregard of the same is incorrect and erroneous.<\/p>\n

iii. The conclusion of the Hon\u2019ble State Commission that the advertisements published by the Respondent are not misleading is untenable also because it goes contrary to the decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission,\u00a0 [1989] 2 SCR 979. In the aforesaid decision, while explaining the scope of the term \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court held that when a problem arises as to whether a particular act can be condemned as an unfair trade practice or not, the key to the solution would be to examine whether it contains a false statement and is misleading; and further, what is the effect of such a representation made by the manufacturer on the common man. The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court also stated that there could be another question posed as to whether an act leads a reasonable person in the position of a buyer to a wrong conclusion. In the instant case, the Product as advertised by the Respondent does not have \u201c50% extra\u201d as compared to similar products of other manufacturers. The same is therefore clearly misleading and constitutes an \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019. Further, as is evident from the decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, to constitute an unfair trade practice, it is not necessary that the brand name of the product sold by the Respondent should be comparable to the brand name of other manufacturers. That being the settled legal position, the conclusions arrived at by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission, based on extraneous considerations, are wrong and ought to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

iv. The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has observed that the acts of the Respondent do not amount to making a false statement since the Respondent is only giving an \u2018incentive\u201d to the consumers to promote sale of its products. The aforesaid finding however clearly ignores the fact that the Respondent is not giving any such alleged incentive. On the other hand, the Respondent is deliberately making a false and misleading representation that it is offering \u201c50% extra\u201d of the product in question when, in fact, it is not.<\/p>\n

v. The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has observed that the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by the Appellant do not constitute a \u2018consumer complaint\u2019. However, the said finding clearly falls foul of the various provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (\u201cAct\u201d).\u00a0 Pertinently, a \u2018complaint\u2019, as defined in the Act under Section 2(c)(i), inter alia, means an unfair trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider. Noticeably, the acts complained of by the Appellant clearly fall within the scope and ambit of the definition of unfair trade practice as provided in Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (i), Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) (r) (2) of the Act. There is also no doubt that the Appellant is a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. That being the case, the conclusion arrived at by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission that the Complaint filed by the Appellant is not a consumer complaint goes contrary to the substantive provisions of law and therefore wholly untenable and unsustainable.<\/p>\n

vi. The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has observed that admitting complaints such as the one filed by the Appellant tantamount to abuse of the process of law; and that the Complaint is frivolous and vexatious. However, while arriving at this conclusion, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission completely failed to notice that the Appellant is an advocate by profession who had filed the Complaint in public interest to prevent publishing of false and misleading advertisements which dupe innocent consumers. Further, the compensation that was claimed by the Appellant was also prayed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund or any other such fund. The observations therefore made by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission regarding the bonafides of the Appellant were wholly unnecessary and incorrect. These observations also ignore the very object of the Act, which is to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers. The impugned observations are therefore liable to be expunged by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

9. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are briefly stated in the following paragraphs.<\/p>\n

i. The Appellant abovenamed is an Advocate by profession practicing in New Delhi.<\/p>\n

ii. The Respondent is a large corporation engaged in, inter-alia, selling edible consumer products including, biscuits, namkeens etc.\u00a0 Products of the Respondent have visibility and availability across the country.\u00a0 The Respondent also spends huge amounts of money on advertising its products in electronic and print media. By its own admission, the Respondent\u2019s total advertising budget for the financial year 2008-09 was Rs. 502.30 crores.<\/p>\n

iii. Sometime in November 2009, based on the advertisements by the Respondent and various representations made by the Respondent on the packets of its products, the Appellant purchased \u201cBingo Tedhe Medhe Masala Tadka\u201d (hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe Product\u201d) of the Respondent in Delhi.\u00a0 The Appellant bought a packet of 67.5 g of the Product at an MRP of Rs.10\/-. The original Bill dated November 19, 2009 and the empty pack of the Product has been filed by the Appellant before this Hon\u2019ble Commission as detailed in paragraphs (xiv) to (xix) below. The Appellant, to establish her bonafides as a purchaser of the impugned Product and as a consumer, had filed a fresh Bill as also a fresh packet of the Product, also purchased in Delhi before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission.\u00a0\u00a0 A copy of the said bill dated February 3, 2010, in proof of purchase of the Product is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure C. An empty pack of the Product is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure D.<\/p>\n

iv. The wrapper of each packet of the Product also contained an inscription that it contained \u201c50% extra\u201d. Such representation on the wrapper clearly implied that either the contents were 50% extra when compared to the competing products available in the market or that the contents were 50% extra over the quantity being sold earlier prior to introduction of such packs of the Product.<\/p>\n

v. The Appellant soon realized that the Product as advertised by the Respondent did not have \u201c50% extra\u201d as compared to similar products of other manufacturers. To confirm her suspicions the Appellant went to the market once again and purchased the competing products manufactured by other companies.<\/p>\n

vi. Upon comparison of the Respondent\u2019s said Product with similar products manufactured and sold by other companies, the Appellant was shocked to find that the claims made by the Respondent on the packets of the Product were completely false, misleading and untrue. It also became apparent that the Respondent had materially misled the public concerning the price at which the Product was being sold inasmuch as that it did not have the advertised quantity, i.e. 50% extra, as compared to other products as was advertised; and that the Respondent had published the advertisements for sale of the Product at a bargain price when, in fact, it was not intended to be offered for sale at the bargain price.\u00a0 Obviously such false and misleading claims and representations were made by the Respondent with a view to promote the sale of the Product and to cheat innocent consumers.<\/p>\n

vii. The comparison of the price and quantity of the competing products available in the market with the Product as mentioned in the chart below clearly establishes the unfair and deceptive trade practices, means and methods adopted by the Respondent for promoting the sale of the Product.<\/p>\n

GRAMMAGE AND PRICE OF SIMILAR PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET<\/p>\n

BRAND<\/p>\n

PRICE\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bingo\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Kurkure Masala Munch
Yellow Diamond\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Haldiram
Rs. 10\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 67.5g
55g\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 80g\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 45g<\/p>\n

viii. The aforesaid comparison makes it absolutely clear that the Respondent has attempted to deceive consumers across the country by printing false information on the packets of the Product. The claims made by the Respondent, by way of its promotional methods, are clearly unfounded and it is obvious that the packets of the Product do not contain \u201850% extra\u2019 as has been sought to be projected.<\/p>\n

ix. It is thus apparent and established that the packets of the Product being sold by the Respondent at an MRP of Rs.10\/- do not have 50% extra quantity as compared to similar competing products available in the market.\u00a0 Clearly, the Respondent had made a false statement on the wrappers of the packets of the Product to mislead the innocent consumers.<\/p>\n

x. As stated above, the Appellant also attempted to find out from the market the weight of the packets of Bingo Tedhe Medhe Masala Tadka of the Respondent priced at an MRP of Rs. 10\/- prior to the introduction of the packs of the Product that contained an inscription on the wrapper that it had 50% extra. The Appellant could not find any trace in the market of the packs of the Product prior to the introduction of packs with 50% extra and being sold at an MRP of Rs. 10\/-. It was thus apparent that the claim of 50% extra on the wrapper of the Product was false, baseless and misleading. Clearly the Respondent had made a false statement on the wrappers of the packets of the Product to mislead the innocent consumers.<\/p>\n

xi. The acts of the Respondent clearly constitute, inter-alia, unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (i), Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) (r) (2) of the Act.<\/p>\n

xii. It is further submitted that the acts of the Respondent clearly fall within the scope of the term \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019 as defined by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission,\u00a0 [1989] 2 SCR 979.<\/p>\n

xiii. It is submitted that the impugned unfair trade practices of the Respondent have caused loss and injury to a large number of consumers including the Appellant.\u00a0 Most of the consumers are not identifiable in view of the countrywide presence of the Product as well as the extensive coverage of the said false and misleading advertisements by the Respondent.<\/p>\n

xiv. On the basis of the cause of action set out hereinabove, the Appellant had earlier filed a Complaint before this Hon\u2019ble Commission, New Delhi being Consumer Complaint No.176 of 2009, in respect of the advertisement for the Product impugned in the Complaint before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission. In the said complaint, the Appellant had, inter alia, prayed for an order directing the Respondent to pay a sum of Rupees One Crore to the credit of the Consumer Welfare Fund or such other fund or authority as this Hon\u2019ble Commission deemed fit.\u00a0 However, on November 13, 2009, the Appellant had withdrawn the said Complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, which was granted.\u00a0 (A copy of the Order dated November 13, 2009 is annexed as Annexure A).<\/p>\n

xv. It is respectfully submitted that it was the Appellant\u2019s earnest and bona fide belief that if she was able to justify her claim of Rs. One Crore on the basis of additional material and consequently establish the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the Complaint, the fresh Complaint could also lie before this Commission; more so since the Appellant believed that the expression \u2018appropriate forum\u2019 would not exclude this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

xvi. It is submitted that as per the public financial records of the Respondent, which are available on the website of the Ministry of Company Affairs, the Respondent\u2019s total advertising budget for the financial year 2008-09 was Rs. 502.30 crores. A copy of the Profit and Loss Account of the Respondent is annexed herewith as Annexure E.<\/p>\n

xvii. Accordingly, in January 2010, the Appellant filed a fresh Complaint before this Hon\u2019ble Commission, being Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 2010, alongwith additional material information, in particular the financial records of the Respondent for the financial year 2008-09, which provided for its advertising budget as Rs. 502.30 crores and which justified the Appellant\u2019s claim of Rupees Once Crore pursuant to the provisions of Section 14(1)(hb) of the Act.<\/p>\n

xviii. The fresh Complaint came up for admission before a bench comprising Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta and Hon\u2019ble Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao on January 22, 2010. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Hon\u2019ble Members observed that since the order dated November 13, 2009 was passed by a bench presided over by Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice R.K. Batta, the Complaint should be listed before a bench comprising Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice R.K. Batta. The matter was accordingly adjourned to January 27, 2010. True typed copy of the Order dated January 22, 2010 of the Hon\u2019ble NCDRC is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure F.<\/p>\n

xix. The Complaint accordingly came up for admission on January 27, 2010. When the matter was taken up for hearing on the said date, this Hon\u2019ble Commission had dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the order dated November 13, 2009 gave the Appellant the liberty to file a fresh complaint before an appropriate forum, other than the National Commission and that the Complaint was therefore not maintainable before the National Commission. The Hon\u2019ble Members however observed that this order of dismissal will not come in the way of the Appellant in filing a Complaint pursuant to the earlier order dated November 13, 2009. (A copy of the Order dated January 27, 2010 is annexed as Annexure B).<\/p>\n

xx. The Appellant, therefore, filed the Complaint before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission pursuant to the liberty granted to her vide order dated November 13, 2010.<\/p>\n

xxi. In her Complaint before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission, the Appellant, inter alia, claimed that by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(hb) of the Act, the Respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 99,94,000\/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Ninety Four Thousand\u00a0 only) or such sum as may be determined by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission for loss and injury suffered by a large number of consumers who were not identifiable conveniently.\u00a0 The Appellant further prayed that the said sum was liable to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund pursuant to Rule 10 A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 or to be credited in such other manner as may be determined by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission.\u00a0 The Appellant also prayed that by virtue of provisions of Section 14 (1) (hc) of the Act, the Respondent was also liable to be directed to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisements issued by it. In addition to the aforesaid, the Appellant prayed that the Respondent was also liable to pay her a further sum of Rs.5,000\/- as compensation. Further, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(f) of the Act, read with Sections 17 & 18 of the Act, the Appellant prayed that the Respondent was liable to be directed to cease and desist from continuing with the unfair trade practice of publishing and making false and misleading advertisements for the Product and to withdraw from the market all the stocks of the Product which contain the statement on the label \u201c50% extra\u201d.<\/p>\n

xxii. Vide the impugned order, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission has, however dismissed the Complaint filed by Appellant and directed her to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000\/- as costs on the ground that the Complaint is frivolous and vexatious. It is pertinent to mention that though the matter was heard by the State Commission on May 14, 2010, at that stage orders were reserved. Thereafter, the order was subsequently pronounced as dated May 14, 2010, was certified by the Registry of the State Commission on June 21, 2010 and communicated to the Appellant on June 24, 2010.<\/p>\n

10. The impugned order passed by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission is liable to be set aside inter alia on the following grounds which are taken without prejudice to each other:<\/p>\n

GROUNDS<\/p>\n

A. Because the State Commission gravely erred in holding, inter-alia, that the Appellant should approach MRTP Commission for the said grievance, despite the fact the MRTP Commission has since been wound up and the MRTP Act repealed with effect from September 01, 2009.<\/p>\n

B. Because the State Commission further erred in holding that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (\u201cthe Act\u201d) that is in pari materia with Section 36-A of the MRTP Act, for conducting any enquiry into unfair trade practices under the Act.\u00a0 This finding is clearly contrary to the admitted legal position that Section 36-A of the MRTP Act had contained definition of \u201cUnfair trade practice\u201d that was borrowed and incorporated by amendment of Section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18-06-1993.<\/p>\n

C. Because the findings rendered by the State Commission run contrary to not only the statutory provisions but the legislative intent in enacting the Consumer Protection Act and amendments thereto so as to empower the Fora under the Act to look into the complaints of unfair trade practices.\u00a0 It is respectfully submitted that the scope and purview of jurisdiction of the Fora under the Act is not confined to complaints for defects in goods and deficiency in service as was originally contemplated when the Act was enacted, but has since been expanded by several amendments thereto so as to include, inter-alia, complaints for restrictive trade practices and unfair trade practices.\u00a0 The amendments in the years 1993 and 2002 to the definition of\u00a0\u00a0 \u201ccomplaint\u201d in section 2 (1) (c) of the Act bear testimony to the above.\u00a0 Clearly, the State Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.<\/p>\n

D. Because the impugned order has been made inspite of the order of this Hon\u2019ble Commission dated November 13, 2009 in Complaint No. 176 of 2009 granting liberty to approach appropriate forum and on a total misinterpretation and misreading of the said order.\u00a0 The State Commission failed to appreciate that it was not the intent of this Hon\u2019ble Commission that the jurisdiction of the fora under the Act cannot be invoked at all in the given facts of the case.<\/p>\n

E. Because the State Commission gravely erred in imposing costs of Rs.10,000\/- that were not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case;<\/p>\n

F. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the actions of the Respondent constitute an unfair trade practice and fall foul, inter alia, of the provisions of Section 2(r) of the Act. The impugned order is therefore liable to set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

G. Because the impugned order goes contrary to the decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. Reported as (2007) 7 SCC 668. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court has held that whether the claim of a Appellant is realistic, exaggerated or excessive can only be determined after the Appellant is given an opportunity to prove the case set up by him under various heads. Pertinently, by not giving the Appellant an opportunity to justify its claim for a sum of Rs. 99,94,000\/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Ninety Four Thousand\u00a0 only) for the loss and injury suffered by a large number of consumers, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission has failed to follow the law as laid down by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court and therefore acted with material irregularity. The impugned order therefore is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.<\/p>\n

H. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the Product as advertised by the Respondent did not have \u201c50% extra\u201d as compared to similar products of other manufacturers and therefore, the claims made by the Respondent on the packets of the Product were completely false, misleading and untrue. In the face of the aforesaid indubitable fact, the impugned conclusion that the advertisement of the Respondent is not misleading is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

I. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that by publishing false and misleading advertisements, the Respondent had materially misled the public concerning the price at which the Product was being sold inasmuch as that it did not have the advertised quantity, i.e. 50% extra, as compared to other products as was advertised; and that the Respondent had published the advertisements for sale of the Product at a bargain price when, in fact, it was not intended to be offered for sale at the bargain price.\u00a0 Obviously such false and misleading claims and representations were made by the Respondent with a view to promote the sale of the Product and to cheat innocent consumers. The impugned order upholding the actions of the Respondent is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

J. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission completely overlooked the comparative chart furnished by the Appellant and which clearly established the unfair and deceptive trade practices, means and methods adopted by the Respondent for promoting the sale of the Product. The impugned order which has put a seal of approval on the unfair trade practices adopted by the Respondent is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

K. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that despite strenuous attempts made by the Appellant, it could not find any trace in the market of the packs of the Respondent\u2019s Product prior to the introduction of packs with 50% extra and being sold at an MRP of Rs. 10\/-. It was thus apparent that the claim of 50% extra on the wrapper of the Product was false, baseless and misleading. Clearly the Respondent had made a false statement on the wrappers of the packets of the Product to mislead the innocent consumers. The aforesaid fact, having been completely ignored by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

L. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the acts of the Respondent clearly constituted, inter-alia, unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (i), Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) (r) (2) of the Act. That being the case, the impugned conclusion that the acts of the Respondent do not constitute an unfair trade practice is therefore clearly erroneous and liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

M. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the acts of the Respondent clearly fall within the scope of the term \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019 as defined by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission,\u00a0 [1989] 2 SCR 979 wherein it was held that when a problem arises as to whether a particular act can be condemned as an unfair trade practice or not, the key to the solution would be to examine whether it contains a false statement and is misleading; and further, what is the effect of such a representation made by the manufacturer on the common man. The Hon\u2019ble Court also stated that there could be another question posed as to whether an act leads a reasonable person in the position of a buyer to a wrong conclusion. The impugned order, in as much as it goes contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

N. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the impugned unfair trade practices of the Respondent have caused loss and injury to a large number of consumers including the Appellant.\u00a0 Most of the consumers are not identifiable in view of the countrywide presence of the Product as well as the extensive coverage of the said false and misleading advertisements by the Respondent. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(f) of the Act, read with Sections 17 & 18 of the Act, the Respondent should have been directed to cease and desist from continuing with the unfair trade practice of publishing and making false and misleading claims on the wrappers of the packets of the Product and to withdraw from the market all the stocks of the Product which contain the statement \u201c50% extra\u201d. The impugned order, in as much as it completely ignores the aforesaid is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

O. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that vide orders dated November 13, 2009 and January 21, 2010, this Hon\u2019ble Commission had granted liberty to the Appellant to file a fresh complaint before a forum other than the National Commission since the Appellant was not able to satisfy this Hon\u2019ble Commission on the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction.\u00a0\u00a0 Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty granted by this Hon\u2019ble Commission, the Appellant had approached the Hon\u2019ble State Commission by reducing its claim below Rs. One Crore. However, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission dismissed the Complaint filed by the Appellant on the untenable ground that such complaints can be entertained only by authorities constituted under the MRTP Act or by the Courts of law, when no such observations were made by this Hon\u2019ble Commission in the aforesaid orders. The impugned order, in as much as it is based on an incorrect reading of the liberty granted by this Hon\u2019ble Commission is therefore liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n

P. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission has incorrectly held that since the Respondent is only giving an incentive to the consumers, its advertisements cannot amount to making of a false statement. The aforesaid finding however clearly ignores the fact that the Respondent is not giving any such alleged incentive. On the other hand, the Respondent is deliberately making a false and misleading representation that it is offering \u201c50% extra\u201d when in fact it is not. The impugned order, in as much as it clearly ignores the aforesaid fact is therefore wholly untenable and liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

Q. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the Complaint filed by the Appellant was a \u2018consumer complaint\u2019 as defined in the Act. Pertinently, a \u2018complaint\u2019, as defined in the Act under Section 2(c)(i), inter alia, means an unfair trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider. Noticeably, the acts complained of by the Appellant clearly fall within the scope and ambit of the definition of unfair trade practice as provided in Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (i), Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) (r) (2) of the Act. There is also no doubt that the Appellant is a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. That being the case, the conclusion arrived at by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission to the contrary goes against the substantive provisions of law and is therefore wholly untenable and unsustainable.<\/p>\n

R. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that after coming into force of the Competition Act, 2002, all cases pertaining to unfair trade practices other than those referred to in Clause (x) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 are being adjudicated upon by the Hon\u2019ble National Commission. That being the case, the impugned conclusion that the expression \u2018appropriate forum\u2019 in the orders dated November 13, 2009 and January 22, 2010 did not include Consumer Fora\u00a0 at all is wholly untenable and liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble State Commission.<\/p>\n

S. Because, respectfully, the impugned order passed by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission is tantamount to an abdication of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

T. Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the Appellant is an advocate by profession who had filed the Complaint in public interest to prevent publishing of false and misleading advertisements which dupe innocent consumers. Further, the compensation that was claimed by the Appellant was also prayed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund or any other such fund. The impugned observations made by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission regarding the bonafides of the Appellant were therefore wholly unnecessary and incorrect. These observations also ignore the very object of the Act, which is to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers. The impugned observations are therefore liable to be expunged by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

PRAYER<\/p>\n

In the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon\u2019ble Commission may be pleased to pass an order:-<\/p>\n

a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To call for the records of the complaint being C-10\/39 titled as Jahanvi Worah\u00a0 vs. ITC Ltd. before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and upon perusal of the records be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 14-05-2010 and be pleased to allow the complaint filed by the Appellant;<\/p>\n

b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To award costs of the Appeal in favour of the Appellant;<\/p>\n

c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To pass such further orders as this Hon\u2019ble Commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;<\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n

THROUGH<\/p>\n

COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI<\/p>\n

IN THE MATTER OF:<\/p>\n

JAHANVI WORAH,
Q-19B, JUNGPURA EXTN.,<\/p>\n

NEW DELHI – 110014<\/p>\n

\u2026\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 APPELLANT<\/p>\n

VERSUS<\/p>\n

PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD.
NORTH LEVEL CROSSING
VILE PARLE EAST
MUMBAI – 400057<\/p>\n

MAHARASHTRA<\/p>\n

\u2026 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 21(a)(ii) OF THE<\/p>\n

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.<\/p>\n

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Appellant is seeking to file the present appeal being aggrieved by an order dated May 14, 2010 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u201cState Commission\u201d) in Case No. C-10\/40 (\u201cimpugned order\u201d), certified by the Registry of the State Commission on June 21, 2010 and communicated to the Appellant on June 24, 2010, dismissing in limine the Appellant\u2019s complaint by refusing to exercise its jurisdiction inspite of the fact that the complaint duly disclosed commission of unfair trade practices, by holding, inter-alia, that the Appellant should approach MRTP Commission for the said grievance, despite the fact the MRTP Commission has since been wound up and the MRTP Act repealed with effect from September 01, 2009.\u00a0\u00a0 Certified copy of the impugned order is being filed herewith.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The State Commission has further held in the impugned order that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (\u201cthe Act\u201d) that is in pari materia with Section 36-A of the MRTP Act, for conducting any enquiry into unfair trade practices under the Act.\u00a0 This finding is clearly contrary to the admitted legal position that Section 36-A of the MRTP Act had contained definition of \u201cUnfair trade practice\u201d that was borrowed and incorporated by amendment of Section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18-06-1993.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In fact the findings rendered by the State Commission run contrary to not only the statutory provisions but the legislative intent in enacting the Consumer Protection Act and amendments thereto so as to empower the Fora under the Act to look into the complaints of unfair trade practices.\u00a0 It is respectfully submitted that the scope and purview of jurisdiction of the Fora under the Act is not confined to complaints for defects in goods and deficiency in service as was originally contemplated when the Act was enacted, but has since been expanded by several amendments thereto so as to include, inter-alia, complaints for restrictive trade practices and unfair trade practices.\u00a0 The amendments in the years 1993 and 2002 to the definition of\u00a0\u00a0 \u201ccomplaint\u201d in section 2 (1) (c) of the Act bear testimony to the above.\u00a0 Clearly, the State Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is further submitted that the impugned order has been made inspite of the order of this Hon\u2019ble Commission dated November 13, 2009 in Complaint No. 175 of 2009 granting liberty to approach appropriate forum and on a total misinterpretation and misreading of the said order.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The said earlier complaint No. 175 of 2009 filed before this Hon\u2019ble Commission was allowed to be withdrawn at the stage of admission on November 13, 2009 with liberty to file the same before an appropriate forum as this Hon\u2019ble Commission was of the view during the course of hearing that the amount of compensation should be reduced.\u00a0 True copy of the said order dated November 13, 2009 of this Hon\u2019ble Commission is annexed hereto and marked Annexure A.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In fact, the Appellant had filed another complaint before this Hon\u2019ble Commission with additional material being Complaint No. 16 of 2010, which was not entertained by this Hon\u2019ble Commission on January 27, 2010 and the liberty granted vide order dated November 13, 2009 was maintained.\u00a0 True copy of the said order dated January 27, 2010 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure B.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It was thereafter that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Hon\u2019ble Court that the Appellant had filed the said complaint before the State Commission.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The impugned order is also based on the following principal findings, all of which, in the respectful submission of the Appellant, are contrary to the indubitable facts and settled law, which make the same unsustainable and untenable. The impugned order is also contrary to the substantive provisions of law and is based on fundamentally erroneous legal propositions, which go to the root of the matter. The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has therefore acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.<\/p>\n

i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has held that the Respondent had not published any advertisement claiming their product or brand name to be the same as that of other manufacturers. That being the case, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission has held that the advertisement published by the Respondent is not misleading. The aforesaid finding, however, clearly ignores the indubitable facts pleaded by the Appellant in its Complaint. Pertinently, the Appellant at no point in time pleaded that the brand name of the product sold by the Respondent was similar to the ones sold by the other manufacturers as named in the Complaint. On the contrary, it was the Appellant\u2019s case that since the product sold by the Respondent was the same as that of other manufacturers, the claim made by the Respondent on the packets of its product regarding \u201c50% extra\u201d was clearly misleading; when in fact, it did not have \u201c50% extra\u201d as compared to similar products of other manufacturers.\u00a0 It was therefore the Appellant\u2019s case that by making such false representations, the Respondent had attempted to deceive consumers across the country by printing false information on the packets of the Product by way of its promotional methods. The aforesaid indubitable facts have been clearly ignored by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has further held that even the claim of \u201850% extra\u2019 made by the Respondent on its packets is not false or misleading since it has not been alleged that the same product being sold earlier was not of the same weight or not less than 50% as claimed by the Respondent. In this regard, the Appellant submits that before filing the Complaint, it attempted to find out from the market the weight of the packets of Parle Musst Stix of the Respondent priced at an MRP of Rs. 5\/- prior to the introduction of the packs of the Product that contained an inscription on the wrapper that it had 50% extra. However, the Appellant could not find any trace in the market of the packs of the Product prior to the introduction of packs with 50% extra and being sold at an MRP of Rs. 5\/-. It was thus apparent that the claim of 50% extra on the wrapper of the Product was false, baseless and misleading. Clearly the Respondent had made a false statement on the wrappers of the packets of the Product to mislead the innocent consumers. The Appellant submits that the aforesaid was categorically pleaded by it in its Complaint before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission and therefore, the finding arrived at by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission in clear disregard of the same is incorrect and erroneous.
In this regard, it is also pertinent to point out that as per the very own admission of the Respondent, the claim of 50% extra was in comparison to the competing products in the market. This is clearly borne out from the advertisement released by the Respondent where it was stated that that \u201cjo paisa hum inki advertising par kharch karne vale the, humne socha kyun na woh aapko zyada snack dene main laga diya jaaye\u201d (the money which we were going to spend on advertising we thought we would instead spend on giving you more snack quantity) and \u201ctry kijiye aur jaaniye same price mein dusron ke mukabeley main hamare paas hai 50% zyada quantity\u201d (try [our product] and know that in the same price we offer 50% more quantity than those of\u00a0 any of our competitors). A CD containing the aforesaid advertisement was annexed alongwith the Original Petition before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission. However, this material was completely ignored by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission.<\/p>\n

iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The conclusion of the Hon\u2019ble State Commission that the advertisements published by the Respondent are not misleading is untenable also because it goes contrary to the decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission,\u00a0 [1989] 2 SCR 979. In the aforesaid decision, while explaining the scope of the term \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court held that when a problem arises as to whether a particular act can be condemned as an unfair trade practice or not, the key to the solution would be to examine whether it contains a false statement and is misleading; and further, what is the effect of such a representation made by the manufacturer on the common man. The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court also stated that there could be another question posed as to whether an act leads a reasonable person in the position of a buyer to a wrong conclusion. In the instant case, the Product as advertised by the Respondent does not have \u201c50% extra\u201d as compared to similar products of other manufacturers. The same is therefore clearly misleading and constitutes an \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019. Further, as is evident from the decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, to constitute an unfair trade practice, it is not necessary that the brand name of the product sold by the Respondent should be comparable to the brand name of other manufacturers. That being the settled legal position, the conclusions arrived at by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission, based on extraneous considerations, are wrong and ought to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

iv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has observed that the acts of the Respondent do not amount to making a false statement since the Respondent is only giving an \u2018incentive\u201d to the consumers to promote sale of its products. The aforesaid finding however clearly ignores the fact that the Respondent is not giving any such alleged incentive. On the other hand, the Respondent is deliberately making a false and misleading representation that it is offering \u201c50% extra\u201d of the product in question when, in fact, it is not.<\/p>\n

v.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has observed that the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by the Appellant do not constitute a \u2018consumer complaint\u2019. However, the said finding clearly falls foul of the various provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (\u201cAct\u201d).\u00a0 Pertinently, a \u2018complaint\u2019, as defined in the Act under Section 2(c)(i), inter alia, means an unfair trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider. Noticeably, the acts complained of by the Appellant clearly fall within the scope and ambit of the definition of unfair trade practice as provided in Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (i), Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) (r) (2) of the Act. There is also no doubt that the Appellant is a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. That being the case, the conclusion arrived at by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission that the Complaint filed by the Appellant is not a consumer complaint goes contrary to the substantive provisions of law and therefore wholly untenable and unsustainable.<\/p>\n

vi.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Hon\u2019ble State Commission has observed that admitting complaints such as the one filed by the Appellant tantamount to abuse of the process of law; and that the Complaint is frivolous and vexatious. However, while arriving at this conclusion, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission completely failed to notice that the Appellant is an advocate by profession who had filed the Complaint in public interest to prevent publishing of false and misleading advertisements which dupe innocent consumers. Further, the compensation that was claimed by the Appellant was also prayed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund or any other such fund. The observations therefore made by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission regarding the bonafides of the Appellant were wholly unnecessary and incorrect. These observations also ignore the very object of the Act, which is to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers. The impugned observations are therefore liable to be expunged by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are briefly stated in the following paragraphs.<\/p>\n

i.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Appellant abovenamed is an Advocate by profession practicing in New Delhi.<\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Respondent is a large corporation engaged in, inter-alia, selling edible consumer products including, biscuits, namkeens etc.\u00a0 Products of the Respondent have visibility and availability across the country.\u00a0 The Respondent also spends huge amounts of money on advertising its products in electronic and print media. By its own admission, the Respondent\u2019s annual profit for the financial year 2008-09 was Rs. 9274.22 lakhs.<\/p>\n

iii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sometime in November 2009, the Complainant noticed television advertisements released by the Opposite Party in respect of its product \u201cParle Musst Stix\u201d (hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe Product\u201d) stating that \u201cjo paisa hum inki advertising par kharch karne vale the, humne socha kyun na woh aapko zyada snack dene main laga diya jaaye\u201d (the money which we were going to spend on advertising we thought we would instead spend on giving you more snack quantity) and \u201ctry kijiye aur jaaniye same price mein dusron ke mukabeley main hamare paas hai 50% zyada quantity\u201d (try [our product] and know that in the same price we offer 50% more quantity than those of\u00a0 any of our competitors). Based on the advertisements by the Opposite Party as above and representations made therein, the Complainant purchased the Product sold by the Opposite Party.\u00a0 The Complainant bought a packet of 30g of the Product at an MRP of Rs.5\/-. A copy of the said bill dated February 3, 2010, in proof of purchase of the Product is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure C. An empty pack of the Product is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure D.<\/p>\n

iv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The wrapper of each packet of the Product also contained an inscription that it contained \u201c50% extra\u201d. Such representation on the wrapper clearly implied that either the contents were 50% extra when compared to the competing products available in the market or that the contents were 50% extra over the quantity being sold earlier prior to introduction of such packs of the Product.<\/p>\n

v.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Appellant soon realized that the Product as advertised by the Respondent did not have \u201c50% extra\u201d as compared to similar products of other manufacturers. To confirm her suspicions the Appellant went to the market once again and purchased the competing products manufactured by other companies.<\/p>\n

vi.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Upon comparison of the Respondent\u2019s said Product with similar products manufactured and sold by other companies, the Appellant was shocked to find that the claims made by the Respondent on the packets of the Product were completely false, misleading and untrue. It also became apparent that the Respondent had materially misled the public concerning the price at which the Product was being sold inasmuch as that it did not have the advertised quantity, i.e. 50% extra, as compared to other products as was advertised; and that the Respondent had published the advertisements for sale of the Product at a bargain price when, in fact, it was not intended to be offered for sale at the bargain price.\u00a0 Obviously such false and misleading claims and representations were made by the Respondent with a view to promote the sale of the Product and to cheat innocent consumers.<\/p>\n

vii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The comparison of the price and quantity of the competing products available in the market with the Product as mentioned in the chart below clearly establishes the unfair and deceptive trade practices, means and methods adopted by the Respondent for promoting the sale of the Product.
GRAMMAGE AND PRICE OF SIMILAR PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET<\/p>\n

BRAND<\/p>\n

PRICE\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Parle\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Kurkure Masala Munch
Yellow Diamond\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Haldiram
Rs. 5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 30g
22g\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 30g\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 22g<\/p>\n

viii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is thus apparent and established that the packets of the Product being sold by the Opposite Party at an MRP of Rs.5\/- do not have 50% extra quantity as compared to similar competing products available in the market.\u00a0 Clearly, the Respondent had released advertisements in media to deceive large number of consumers spread all across the country including the Complainant. The aforesaid comparison also makes it absolutely clear that the Respondent has attempted to deceive consumers across the country by printing false information on the packets of the Product. The claims made by the Respondent, by way of its promotional methods, are clearly unfounded and it is obvious that the packets of the Product do not contain \u201850% extra\u2019 as has been sought to be projected.<\/p>\n

ix.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is thus apparent and established that the packets of the Product being sold by the Respondent at an MRP of Rs.5\/- do not have 50% extra quantity as compared to similar competing products available in the market.\u00a0 Clearly, the Respondent had made a false statement on the wrappers of the packets of the Product to mislead the innocent consumers.<\/p>\n

x.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The acts of the Respondent clearly constitute, inter-alia, unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (i), Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) (r) (2) of the Act.<\/p>\n

xi.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is further submitted that the acts of the Respondent clearly fall within the scope of the term \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019 as defined by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission,\u00a0 [1989] 2 SCR 979.<\/p>\n

xii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is submitted that the impugned unfair trade practices of the Respondent have caused loss and injury to a large number of consumers including the Appellant.\u00a0 Most of the consumers are not identifiable in view of the countrywide presence of the Product as well as the extensive coverage of the said false and misleading advertisements by the Respondent.<\/p>\n

xiii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On the basis of the cause of action set out hereinabove, the Appellant had earlier filed a Complaint before this Hon\u2019ble Commission, New Delhi being Consumer Complaint No.175 of 2009, in respect of the advertisement for the Product impugned in the Complaint before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission. In the said complaint, the Appellant had, inter alia, prayed for an order directing the Respondent to pay a sum of Rupees One Crore to the credit of the Consumer Welfare Fund or such other fund or authority as this Hon\u2019ble Commission deemed fit.\u00a0 However, on November 13, 2009, the Appellant had withdrawn the said Complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, which was granted.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (A copy of the Order dated November 13, 2009 is annexed as Annexure A).<\/p>\n

xiv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is respectfully submitted that it was the Appellant\u2019s earnest and bona fide belief that if she was able to justify her claim of Rs. One Crore on the basis of additional material and consequently establish the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the Complaint, the fresh Complaint could also lie before this Commission; more so since the Appellant believed that the expression \u2018appropriate forum\u2019 would not exclude this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

xv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is submitted that the Complainant also sought to ascertain the advertising budget in the financial year 2008-09, which statement generally finds place in the Profit and Loss Account of a company. However, given that the Opposite Party is a Private Limited Company, it is not mandated to make its Profit and Loss Account available for public scrutiny. However, the Complainant obtained the Balance Sheet of the Opposite Party, which is a public document available on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and which clearly establishes that the Opposite Party is a profit-making company with its annual profit for the Financial Year 2008-09 being Rs. 9274.22 lakhs. Any further information, including the amounts spent on advertising by the Opposite Party, would only become available upon accounts being rendered by the Opposite Party of its advertisement budget and expenditure. A copy of the Audited Balance Sheet of the Opposite Party is annexed herewith as Annexure E.<\/p>\n

xvi.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Accordingly, in January 2010, the Appellant filed a fresh Complaint before this Hon\u2019ble Commission, being Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2010, alongwith additional material information, in particular the audited balance sheet of the Respondent for the financial year 2008-09, which provided its annual profit as being Rs. 9274.22 lakhs and which justified the Appellant\u2019s claim of Rupees Once Crore pursuant to the provisions of Section 14(1)(hb) of the Act.<\/p>\n

xvii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The fresh Complaint came up for admission before a bench comprising Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta and Hon\u2019ble Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao on January 22, 2010. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Hon\u2019ble Members observed that since the order dated November 13, 2009 was passed by a bench presided over by Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice R.K. Batta, the Complaint should be listed before a bench comprising Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice R.K. Batta. The matter was accordingly adjourned to January 27, 2010. True typed copy of the Order dated January 22, 2010 of the Hon\u2019ble NCDRC is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure F.<\/p>\n

xviii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Complaint accordingly came up for admission on January 27, 2010. When the matter was taken up for hearing on the said date, this Hon\u2019ble Commission had dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the order dated November 13, 2009 gave the Appellant the liberty to file a fresh complaint before an appropriate forum, other than the National Commission and that the Complaint was therefore not maintainable before the National Commission. The Hon\u2019ble Members however observed that this order of dismissal will not come in the way of the Appellant in filing a Complaint pursuant to the earlier order dated November 13, 2009. (A copy of the Order dated January 27, 2010 is annexed as Annexure B).<\/p>\n

xix.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Appellant, therefore, filed the Complaint before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission pursuant to the liberty granted to her vide order dated November 13, 2010.<\/p>\n

xx.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In her Complaint before the Hon\u2019ble State Commission, the Appellant, inter alia, claimed that by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(hb) of the Act, the Respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 99,94,000\/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Ninety Four Thousand\u00a0 only) or such sum as may be determined by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission for loss and injury suffered by a large number of consumers who were not identifiable conveniently.\u00a0 The Appellant further prayed that the said sum was liable to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund pursuant to Rule 10 A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 or to be credited in such other manner as may be determined by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission.\u00a0 The Appellant also prayed that by virtue of provisions of Section 14 (1) (hc) of the Act, the Respondent was also liable to be directed to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisements issued by it. In addition to the aforesaid, the Appellant prayed that the Respondent was also liable to pay her a further sum of Rs.5,000\/- as compensation. Further, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(f) of the Act, read with Sections 17 & 18 of the Act, the Appellant prayed that the Respondent was liable to be directed to cease and desist from continuing with the unfair trade practice of publishing and making false and misleading advertisements for the Product and to withdraw from the market all the stocks of the Product which contain the statement on the label \u201c50% extra\u201d.<\/p>\n

xxi.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vide the impugned order, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission has, however dismissed the Complaint filed by Appellant and directed her to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000\/- as costs on the ground that the Complaint is frivolous and vexatious. It is pertinent to mention that though the matter was heard by the State Commission on May 14, 2010, at that stage orders were reserved. Thereafter, the order was subsequently pronounced as dated May 14, 2010, was certified by the Registry of the State Commission on June 21, 2010 and communicated to the Appellant on June 24, 2010.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The impugned order passed by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission is liable to be set aside inter alia on the following grounds which are taken without prejudice to each other:<\/p>\n

GROUNDS<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the State Commission gravely erred in holding, inter-alia, that the Appellant should approach MRTP Commission for the said grievance, despite the fact the MRTP Commission has since been wound up and the MRTP Act repealed with effect from September 01, 2009.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the State Commission further erred in holding that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (\u201cthe Act\u201d) that is in pari materia with Section 36-A of the MRTP Act, for conducting any enquiry into unfair trade practices under the Act.\u00a0 This finding is clearly contrary to the admitted legal position that Section 36-A of the MRTP Act had contained definition of \u201cUnfair trade practice\u201d that was borrowed and incorporated by amendment of Section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18-06-1993.<\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the findings rendered by the State Commission run contrary to not only the statutory provisions but the legislative intent in enacting the Consumer Protection Act and amendments thereto so as to empower the Fora under the Act to look into the complaints of unfair trade practices.\u00a0 It is respectfully submitted that the scope and purview of jurisdiction of the Fora under the Act is not confined to complaints for defects in goods and deficiency in service as was originally contemplated when the Act was enacted, but has since been expanded by several amendments thereto so as to include, inter-alia, complaints for restrictive trade practices and unfair trade practices.\u00a0 The amendments in the years 1993 and 2002 to the definition of\u00a0\u00a0 \u201ccomplaint\u201d in section 2 (1) (c) of the Act bear testimony to the above.\u00a0 Clearly, the State Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.<\/p>\n

D.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the impugned order has been made inspite of the order of this Hon\u2019ble Commission dated November 13, 2009 in Complaint No. 176 of 2009 granting liberty to approach appropriate forum and on a total misinterpretation and misreading of the said order.\u00a0 The State Commission failed to appreciate that it was not the intent of this Hon\u2019ble Commission that the jurisdiction of the fora under the Act cannot be invoked at all in the given facts of the case.<\/p>\n

E.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the State Commission gravely erred in imposing costs of Rs.10,000\/- that were not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case;<\/p>\n

F.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the actions of the Respondent constitute an unfair trade practice and fall foul, inter alia, of the provisions of Section 2(r) of the Act. The impugned order is therefore liable to set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

G.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the impugned order goes contrary to the decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. Reported as (2007) 7 SCC 668. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court has held that whether the claim of a Appellant is realistic, exaggerated or excessive can only be determined after the Appellant is given an opportunity to prove the case set up by him under various heads. Pertinently, by not giving the Appellant an opportunity to justify its claim for a sum of Rs. 99,94,000\/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lacs Ninety Four Thousand\u00a0 only) for the loss and injury suffered by a large number of consumers, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission has failed to follow the law as laid down by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court and therefore acted with material irregularity. The impugned order therefore is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.<\/p>\n

H.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the Product as advertised by the Respondent did not have \u201c50% extra\u201d as compared to similar products of other manufacturers and therefore, the claims made by the Respondent on the packets of the Product were completely false, misleading and untrue. In the face of the aforesaid indubitable fact, the impugned conclusion that the advertisement of the Respondent is not misleading is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that by publishing false and misleading advertisements, the Respondent had materially misled the public concerning the price at which the Product was being sold inasmuch as that it did not have the advertised quantity, i.e. 50% extra, as compared to other products as was advertised; and that the Respondent had published the advertisements for sale of the Product at a bargain price when, in fact, it was not intended to be offered for sale at the bargain price.\u00a0 Obviously such false and misleading claims and representations were made by the Opposite Party with a view to promote the sale of the Product and to cheat innocent consumers. The impugned order upholding the actions of the Respondent is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

J.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission completely overlooked the comparative chart furnished by the Appellant and which clearly established the unfair and deceptive trade practices, means and methods adopted by the Respondent for promoting the sale of the Product. The impugned order which has put a seal of approval on the unfair trade practices adopted by the Respondent is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

K.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that despite strenuous attempts made by the Appellant, it could not find any trace in the market of the packs of the Respondent\u2019s Product prior to the introduction of packs with 50% extra and being sold at an MRP of Rs. 10\/-. It was thus apparent that the claim of 50% extra on the wrapper of the Product was false, baseless and misleading. Clearly the Respondent had made a false statement on the wrappers of the packets of the Product to mislead the innocent consumers. The aforesaid fact, having been completely ignored by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

L.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the acts of the Respondent clearly constituted, inter-alia, unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (i), Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) (r) (2) of the Act. That being the case, the impugned conclusion that the acts of the Respondent do not constitute an unfair trade practice is therefore clearly erroneous and liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

M.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the acts of the Respondent clearly fall within the scope of the term \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019 as defined by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission,\u00a0 [1989] 2 SCR 979 wherein it was held that when a problem arises as to whether a particular act can be condemned as an unfair trade practice or not, the key to the solution would be to examine whether it contains a false statement and is misleading; and further, what is the effect of such a representation made by the manufacturer on the common man. The Hon\u2019ble Court also stated that there could be another question posed as to whether an act leads a reasonable person in the position of a buyer to a wrong conclusion. The impugned order, in as much as it goes contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

N.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the impugned unfair trade practices of the Respondent have caused loss and injury to a large number of consumers including the Appellant.\u00a0 Most of the consumers are not identifiable in view of the countrywide presence of the Product as well as the extensive coverage of the said false and misleading advertisements by the Respondent. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(f) of the Act, read with Sections 17 & 18 of the Act, the Respondent should have been directed to cease and desist from continuing with the unfair trade practice of publishing and making false and misleading claims on the wrappers of the packets of the Product and to withdraw from the market all the stocks of the Product which contain the statement \u201c50% extra\u201d. The impugned order, in as much as it completely ignores the aforesaid is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

O.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that vide orders dated November 13, 2009 and January 21, 2010, this Hon\u2019ble Commission had granted liberty to the Appellant to file a fresh complaint before a forum other than the National Commission since the Appellant was not able to satisfy this Hon\u2019ble Commission on the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction.\u00a0\u00a0 Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty granted by this Hon\u2019ble Commission, the Appellant had approached the Hon\u2019ble State Commission by reducing its claim below Rs. One Crore. However, the Hon\u2019ble State Commission dismissed the Complaint filed by the Appellant on the untenable ground that such complaints can be entertained only by authorities constituted under the MRTP Act or by the Courts of law, when no such observations were made by this Hon\u2019ble Commission in the aforesaid orders. The impugned order, in as much as it is based on an incorrect reading of the liberty granted by this Hon\u2019ble Commission is therefore liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n

P.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission has incorrectly held that since the Respondent is only giving an incentive to the consumers, its advertisements cannot amount to making of a false statement. The aforesaid finding however clearly ignores the fact that the Respondent is not giving any such alleged incentive. On the other hand, the Respondent is deliberately making a false and misleading representation that it is offering \u201c50% extra\u201d when in fact it is not. The impugned order, in as much as it clearly ignores the aforesaid fact is therefore wholly untenable and liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

Q.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the Complaint filed by the Appellant was a \u2018consumer complaint\u2019 as defined in the Act. Pertinently, a \u2018complaint\u2019, as defined in the Act under Section 2(c)(i), inter alia, means an unfair trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider. Noticeably, the acts complained of by the Appellant clearly fall within the scope and ambit of the definition of unfair trade practice as provided in Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (i), Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (ix) and Section 2 (1) (r) (2) of the Act. There is also no doubt that the Appellant is a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. That being the case, the conclusion arrived at by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission to the contrary goes against the substantive provisions of law and is therefore wholly untenable and unsustainable.<\/p>\n

R.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that after coming into force of the Competition Act, 2002, all cases pertaining to unfair trade practices other than those referred to in Clause (x) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 are being adjudicated upon by the Hon\u2019ble National Commission. That being the case, the impugned conclusion that the expression \u2018appropriate forum\u2019 in the orders dated November 13, 2009 and January 22, 2010 did not include Consumer Fora\u00a0 at all is wholly untenable and liable to be set aside by this Hon\u2019ble State Commission.<\/p>\n

S.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because, respectfully, the impugned order passed by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission is tantamount to an abdication of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

T.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Because the Hon\u2019ble State Commission failed to appreciate that the Appellant is an advocate by profession who had filed the Complaint in public interest to prevent publishing of false and misleading advertisements which dupe innocent consumers. Further, the compensation that was claimed by the Appellant was also prayed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund or any other such fund. The impugned observations made by the Hon\u2019ble State Commission regarding the bonafides of the Appellant were therefore wholly unnecessary and incorrect. These observations also ignore the very object of the Act, which is to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers. The impugned observations are therefore liable to be expunged by this Hon\u2019ble Commission.<\/p>\n

PRAYER<\/p>\n

In the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon\u2019ble Commission may be pleased to pass an order:-<\/p>\n

a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To call for the records of the complaint being C-10\/39 titled as Jahanvi Worah\u00a0 vs. ITC Ltd. before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and upon perusal of the records be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 14-05-2010 and be pleased to allow the complaint filed by the Appellant<\/p>\n

b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To award costs of the Appeal in favour of the Appellant<\/p>\n

c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To pass such further orders as this Hon\u2019ble Commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n

THROUGH<\/p>\n

COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

: \u092c\u093f\u0902\u0917\u094b \u0914\u0930 \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0932\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u094d\u091f \u0938\u094d\u091f\u093f\u0915\u094d\u0938 \u0928\u0947 \u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u0915\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u091b\u0932 \u0915\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u094b\u0921\u093c\u094b\u0902 \u0930\u0941\u092a\u092f\u0947 \u092c\u091f\u094b\u0930\u0947 <\/strong>: \u0928\u0947\u0936\u0928\u0932 \u0915\u0902\u091c\u094d\u092f\u0942\u092e\u0930 \u0921\u093f\u0938\u094d\u092a\u094d\u092f\u0942\u091f\u094d\u0938 \u0930\u093f\u0921\u094d\u0930\u0947\u0938\u0932 \u0915\u092e\u0940\u0936\u0928 \u0928\u0947 \u0939\u093e\u0932 \u0939\u0940 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0932\u0947 \u092c\u093f\u0938\u094d\u0915\u0941\u091f\u094d\u0938 \u0932\u093f\u092e\u093f\u091f\u0947\u0921 \u0915\u094b \u0909\u0928\u0915\u0947 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u2018\u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0932\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u094d\u091f \u0938\u094d\u091f\u093f\u0915\u094d\u0938\u2019 \u0924\u0925\u093e \u0906\u0908.\u091f\u0940.\u0938\u0940. \u0932\u093f\u092e\u093f\u091f\u0947\u0921 \u0915\u094b \u0909\u0928\u0915\u0947 \u0909\u0924\u094d\u092a\u093e\u0926 \u2018\u092c\u093f\u0902\u0917\u094b \u091f\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0922\u093c\u0947 \u092e\u0938\u093e\u0932\u093e \u0924\u0921\u0958\u093e\u2019 \u0915\u0940 \u092c\u093f\u0915\u094d\u0930\u0940 \u092c\u0922\u093c\u093e\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u092d\u094d\u0930\u093e\u092e\u0915 \u0935\u093f\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u092a\u0928 \u0926\u0947\u0928\u0947 \u0924\u0925\u093e \u0917\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0939\u0915\u094b\u0902 \u0938\u0947 \u091b\u0932 \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u0906\u0930\u094b\u092a \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0905\u092a\u0928\u093e \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0930\u0916\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u093e \u0928\u094b\u091f\u093f\u0938 \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":18511,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-vividh"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7322\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18511"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bhadas4media.com\/old\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}