DIRECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION Vs. GODREJ SOAPS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri A. V. Lele, resident of Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi made a complaint to the Commission stating that lured by an advertisement in the Hindustan Times to the effect that Godrej hair dye was a permanent dye, he purchased a carton of the hair dye and used it for dying his hair, but contrary to the claim made by the respondent, Godrej Soaps Limited his hair turned grey after about 20 days or so and he had to use it again as it was not a permanent hair dye and the respondent's claim in the advertisement to that extent was deceptive and misleading. Director General (Investigation and Registration) (DG) was directed to investigate and submit a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR ). DG after investigation submitted a PIR concluding that the claim of total safety and permanent character of the hair dye was not factually correct and the respondent's claim in respect of these characteristics of the hair dye were false, misleading and deceptive and he also recommended that a Notice of Enquiry be issued to the respondent.

(2.) A Notice of Enquiry was accordingly issued on 19.2.1991 to the respondent Godrej Soaps Limited, the manufacturer of the hair dye charging it with misleading the consumers and making claims which were false and deceptive within the meaning of Sec.36 A (1) (i), (iv) and (vi) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief ).

(3.) In reply the respondent denied the allegation of adoption of or indulgence in any unfair trade practice and stated that the PIR was based on complaint of Shri A. V. Lele who neither produced the cash memo nor the empty bottle of the hair dye so as to enable the respondent to ascertain whether the product used by him was genuine. It was further mentioned that the word "permanent" appearing on the carton or the bottle was not intended to be understood in its literal connotation but in the sense in which it is used in the context of cosmetics and hair dyes. It was also stated that in this case no loss or injury to the consumer was proved and the allegation of unfair trade practice could not be established unless loss or injury as a consequence, was demonstrated to have been caused to him.