ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. AT THE TIME OF ENTERTAINING THIS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, NOTICE WAS ISSUED LIMITED TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONS FINDING ON THE QUESTION OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE WAS CORRECT. IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF GRANTED TO RESPONDENT 1 (REFERRED TO HEREAFTER AS "THE COMPLAINANT") IN THIS CASE. 3. THE COMPLAINANT HAD PURCHASED A TRACTOR FROM THE APPELLANT. ON THE ALLEGATION THAT THE TRACTOR GIVEN WAS DEFECTIVE, THE COMPLAINANT FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM SET UP UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS "THE ACT"). THE COMPLAINANT CLAIMED REPLACEMENT OF THE TRACTOR AS WELL AS A SUM OF RS 50,000 BY WAY OF COMPENSATION AND RS 10,000 BY WAY OF EXPENSES. IT MAY BE NOTED AT THIS STAGE THAT THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT ITSELF OF ANY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE. 4. THE DISTRICT FORUM HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE COMPLAINANT THAT THE TRACTOR WAS DEFECTIVE. IT DIRECTED THE APPELLANT TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS OF THE TRACTOR IN QUESTION AND TO PAY RS 25,000 BY WAY OF "COMPOSITE COMPENSATION" TO THE COMPLAINANT. IT MAY BE NOTED AGAIN THAT THERE WAS NO OBSERVATION WITH REGARD TO ANY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE IN THE DISTRICT FORUMS ORDER. 5. THE APPELLANTS FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION WAS DISMISSED. THE STATE COMMISSION MERELY AFFIRMED THE. DISTRICT FORUM’S DIRECTIONS. THE REVISION APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, HOWEVER, NOT ONLY MET WITH DISMISSAL BUT WHILE DISMISSING THE REVISION APPLICATION, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WARRANTY CLAUSE BORE NO SIGNATURE OF THE COMPLAINANT OR THE MANUFACTURER. ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, IT WAS "A CLEAR CASE OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE". IT SAID THAT "SMALL PRINT OF THE WARRANTY ITSELF EXCLUDES THIS FROM OUR CONSIDERATION. NOBODY READS THIS. IT WILL BE PRESUMPTUOUS TO EXPECT AND MAKE RUN (SIC) A PURCHASER OF TRACTOR TO THE ANCILLARY UNITS WHICH MANUFACTURE VARIOUS PARTS". 6. IN THE SUBSEQUENT PORTION OF THE ORDER THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, HOWEVER, HAVING EXCLUDED THE WARRANTY CLAUSE FROM ITS CONSIDERATION, RELIED ON THE WARRANTY CLAUSE FOR UPHOLDING THE CLAIM AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE STAND TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION RELATING TO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE WAS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY. 6. IN THE SUBSEQUENT PORTION OF THE ORDER THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, HOWEVER, HAVING EXCLUDED THE WARRANTY CLAUSE FROM ITS CONSIDERATION, RELIED ON THE WARRANTY CLAUSE FOR UPHOLDING THE CLAIM AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE STAND TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION RELATING TO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE WAS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY. IT HAS BY HOLDING THAT THE WARRANTY CONSTITUTED UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE IN FACT RENDERED DUBIOUS THE BASIS ON WHICH THE NATIONAL COMMISSION GRANTED RELIEF. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT APART FROM THE FINDING OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION BEING UNCALLED FOR, IN FACT THE WARRANTY CLAUSE WAS NOT IN SMALL PRINT. 7. THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE, WHICH HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN SECTION 2(R) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BY THE COMPLAINANT HIMSELF AT ANY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER BASIS HAVING BEEN LAID. WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT THAT IT FOUND THAT THE WARRANTY CLAUSE AMOUNTED TO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE. 8. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF.