2022 (8) TMI 1195 - AT - Indian Laws

Use of dominant position or not - installation and commission of home automation solution - contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 of Act was made or not - allegation is that even after receipt of the payment as per work order, installation, programming and commissioning of the project was not done within the stipulated time - Scope of group as explained in Explanation (c) of Section 4 or Explanation relating to Group in Section 5 of the Act - HELD THAT - On perusal of the facts noticed by the CCI in its impugned order, prima facie it appears that it was a consumers dispute without application of provisions contained either in Section 3 or Section 4 of the Competition Act. Learned CCI has rightly observed that Informant/appellant itself had admitted in letter dated 23.08.2018 sent to OP-1 with the subject Deficiency in services and incomplete work as per the order No.4500015629 dated 06.105.2017 . Besides this it has been noticed by the CCI that there were number of players providing Smart Home Solutions in India and in such a situation there can not be element of dominance in the relevant market. Explanation of Scope of group as explained in Explanation (c) of Section 4 or Explanation relating to Group in Section 5 of the Act - HELD THAT - The appellant has not brought on record any material to show as to how either of the Respondents were having control over the Management or having their shares, voting rights in consonance with three categories in Explanation (b) of Section 5 of the Act. There is no infirmity in the order and appeal is fit to be dismissed - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.
2. Alleged contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
3. Failure to implead the Competition Commission of India (CCI) as a party/respondent.
4. Nature of the dispute - whether it is a consumer or commercial dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002:
The Appellant alleged that the Opposite Parties (OPs) violated Section 3 of the Act by not completing the installation and commissioning of home automation solutions as per the work order and demanding additional equipment purchases. The CCI examined the materials on record and concluded that there was no 'agreement' among the OPs that could be examined within the framework of Section 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the Appellant failed to show any collusion among the OPs that would warrant an examination under Section 3.

2. Alleged Contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002:
The Appellant also claimed that the OPs abused their dominant position, violating Section 4 of the Act. The CCI observed that the allegations of collective dominance do not warrant examination as the present scheme of Section 4 does not envisage joint or collective dominance. The Tribunal agreed, noting that none of the OPs individually held a dominant position in the relevant market for smart home solutions in India. The market was found to have several players, and the OPs were not the only suppliers or integrators. Thus, the question of abuse of dominance did not arise.

3. Failure to Implead CCI as a Party/Respondent:
The Appellant did not implead the CCI as a party/respondent in the appeal, which was necessary as per the Supreme Court judgment in Competition Commission of India Vs Steel Authority of India Limited and Another (2010). The Tribunal highlighted this procedural lapse but proceeded to examine the merits of the case based on the available records.

4. Nature of the Dispute - Consumer or Commercial Dispute:
The Tribunal noted that the dispute primarily concerned the non-completion of work and additional demands by OP-1, which appeared to be a consumer or commercial dispute rather than a competition issue. The CCI had correctly observed that the Informant's grievances related to "deficiency in services" and "unfair trade practices," which are outside the purview of the Competition Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CCI's order and dismissed the appeal. The CCI's decision to close the case under Section 26(2) of the Act was upheld, as there was no evidence of contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the market for smart home solutions in India is competitive, with multiple players, and the OPs did not hold a dominant position. The appeal was dismissed without costs.