Unfair trade practices are as old as the exchange itself. But, the lawful instrument to control these practices took its own time to settle. In spite of the fact that the courts from the earliest starting point were fast to ensure the out of line or deceiving conduct in dicta[1], Judicially forced impediments and functional contemplation of time and cost limited these solutions for narrow conditions. The delicacy displayed towards unfair practices of doubtful probity was established throughout the entire existence of business sectors and fairs in medieval Britain, In which trust was neither given nor expected[2].
An unfair Trade practice implies an exchange practice, for the promotion of advancing any deal, embraces uncalled for strategy, or then again unjustifiable or beguiling practice. Unfair trade Practice envelops a wide cluster of tortes, all of which include financial aspects injury welcomed on my tricky or improper lead. The legitimate hypotheses that can be affirmed incorporate cases, for example, prized formula misappropriation, unreasonable rivalry, bogus promoting selling, what’s more, weakening. Unreasonable exchange practices can emerge in any field of innovation and as often as possible show up regarding the more conventional licensed innovation cases of patent, trademarks, and copyright encroachment.
What is Unfair Trade Practice
The expression of unfair trade practices can be characterized as any business practice or act that is beguiling, false, or makes injury a customer. These practices can incorporate acts that are regarded unlawful, for example, those that abuse Consumer Protection law. A few instances of unfair trade practices techniques are the false portrayal of a decent or administration; false unconditional present or prize offers; false promoting; or deceptive pricing.[3]
Authorities and Agencies for Unfair Trade Practices
1. District Forum
A district forum is eastablished in the district. where a consumer can file a complaint whenever he feels he is misguided, his rights are violated or he is deceived by any manufacturer or seller. Then he can file a complaint District forum which is the lowest forum in the redressal hierarchy and it deals with cases of the amount below 20lakhs.
2. State Commission
State commissions have been set up at the state levels by ideals of sec. 16 of the consumer protection Act. There are 35 state commissions at present in India. State commissions can engage all the issues where the estimation of administrations or merchandise surpasses Rs. 20 lakhs, however, doesn’t go past Rs. 1 crore. In the event that the case is over one crore, at that point, it doesn’t fall under its jurisdiction.
3. National Commission
A national consumer dispute redressal commission is organized by the central government under the Consumer Protection Act. It is termed as an apex court because it oversees the functioning and regulation of the state commissions and district forum also.
4. Supreme Court
If any individual isn’t happy with the Judgment given by the national commission can make a bid in the Supreme Court. There is a strategy for documenting an appeal against the request for a national commission. An appeal can be made with the Supreme Court against the request for national commission inside 30 days from the date of request and this period can be reached out for an additional 15 days. Supreme Court engages the intrigue just when the litigant has stored in the endorsed way half of that sum or fifty thousand whichever is less
5. Competition Commission of India
Competition Commission of India is a body corporate and autonomous element having a typical seal with the ability to go into contracts and to sue in its name. It is to comprise of an executive, who is to be helped by at least two, and a limit of ten, different individuals
In re Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. MRTP Commission, it was affirmed before the Commission that:
- The appealing party organization was fabricating NOVINO (dry cell) batteries as a team with M/s. Mitsushita Electric Modern Organization of Japan, and not with National Panasonic of Japan utilizing their methods, as promoted by it: and
- The representation that NOVINO batteries are produced in joint endeavor or in a joint effort with National Panasonic is false and deceiving.
The MRTP Commission held it to be deluding however the Supreme Court reversed the statement by saying: There is no other organization with the name ‘national’ or ‘panasonic’ and there is no degree for any disarray on that score. Where the reference is being made to the standard of the quality, it isn’t material in the case of assembling organization is shown by its precisely right name or by its depiction regarding its items. We, in this manner, hold that the incorrect depiction of the assembling organization in its notices being referred to doesn’t pull in sec 36A of the Demonstration, despite the fact that we would hurry to include that it would be progressively appropriate for the litigant organization to give the full realities by alluding to Mitsushita Ltd. by its right name and further expressing that its items are known by the names ‘national’ and ‘panasonic’[4].
The MRTP Commission & the transfer of its judicial functions:
Influenced by its colonial experience, a newly independent India adopted an economic policy which subjected almost all areas of economic activity to State regulation and as a consequence, a handful of groups or business houses came to be entrenched with concentrated economic power.[5] In order to address this issue, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (‘MRTP Act’), was enacted, which was the first piece of legislation in the field of competition law in the country. The primary aim of the act was to control monopolies by prohibiting monopolistic and restrictive trade practices.[6] The Act also provided for the appointment of an investigative branch which was to be headed by a Director-General, and for the constitution of a permanent body called the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (‘MRTP Commission’), appointed by the Central Government.
Conclusion
The unfair trade policy of the countries mainly covers laws relating to the regulation of fees of professional bodies. It provides the person with the basic knowledge of its rights, exploitations etc to handle consumer problems in a proper manner with laws. From the above conversation obviously buyers are constantly exposed to control and non-control out of line exchange, for example, imposing business model circumstances vicious rivalry, inadequate quality, distortion and so forth. The superb essentialness of purchaser is that age, competency, the sufficiency of mind isn’t important. The word purchaser likewise incorporates affiliations[7].
It incorporates false representations, bogus proposal of deal value, unconditional presents offers and prize plans resistance of endorsed principles and so on. There are some lawful cures are accessible in India for uncalled for exchange rehearses. These are expulsion of deformities, substitution of merchandise, discount of value, grant of remuneration, evacuation of lack in administration, cessation of uncalled for exchange work on, halting of deal and withdrawal of perilous products, installment of sufficient cost and so on. Close to these cures The Competition Commission of Act, 2002 and consumer protection Act, 1986 assume a crucial job insecurity of customer rights if there should be an occurrence unfair exchange rehearses in India.
[1] American Wash Board Co v. Saginaw Mfg. Co, 103f 281 (6th cir,1900)
[2] Developments in the Law : Deceptive Advertising 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1013 (1967).
[3] https://www.winston.com/en/legal-glossary/unfair-trade-practices.html last visited on june 13th 2020
[4] http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1861/Unfair-Trade-Practice-in-India.html last visited on june 14, 2020
[5]See the Harris School, Economic Reform in India, January, 2006, available at http://harris. uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/IPP%20Economic%20Reform%20in%20India.pdf. (Last visited on November 3, 2016).
[6] Statement of Objects & Reasons of The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
[7] http://www.consumersinternational.org.consumer_movement
This Article Written by khushboo, Student of Geeta Institute of Law.
Also Read – Comparative Analysis of US and EU and Indian Competition Laws
