2015 (4) TMI 377 - Commission - Indian Laws

Contravention of provisions related to car maintenance and repairing services - Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 - Held that - The Commission has perused the information available on record including written submissions and heard the counsel of the Informant. The Commission notes that the matter is related to deficiency in services provided by OP 3 and OP 4 in repairing the engine of the car owned by an individual. Therefore, in the opinion of the Commission the subject matter of the present information does not fall within the domain of the competition law. In light of aforesaid observation, an assessment of the alleged abusive conduct of the Opposite Parties is not required.The Commission further notes that the Informant has made some vague allegations of collusion against all the Opposite Parties but there is nothing on record to substantiate such allegations. In the light of the above facts and situation, the Commission finds that no, prima facie, case is made out against the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the case deserves to be closed down under Section 26(2) of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
Alleged contravention of provisions of the Competition Act in car maintenance and repairing services.

Analysis:
The case involved an information filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging contravention of the Act by several companies in the provision of car maintenance and repairing services. The informant, the owner of a Hyundai i10 car, detailed the warranty policy and the subsequent issues faced with the car's engine. Despite repairs and assurances from the authorized service centers, the engine continued to malfunction. Allegations of collusion between the service centers were made, including claims of hiding deficiencies in services and imposing arbitrary charges. The informant sought an inquiry into the abusive conduct of the companies, claiming a contravention of the Act.

The Competition Commission of India reviewed the information, submissions, and arguments presented. The Commission noted that the matter primarily concerned the deficiency in services provided by the authorized service centers in repairing the car engine. It determined that the subject matter did not fall within the domain of competition law. As a result, the Commission found that an assessment of the alleged abusive conduct was unnecessary. Additionally, the vague allegations of collusion made by the informant lacked substantiation on record. Consequently, the Commission concluded that no prima facie case was established against the companies. Therefore, the case was ordered to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, with instructions for the Secretary to distribute the order to all concerned parties.