9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mium by DSAs; (iv) imposition of RPM; and (v) forcing customers to purchase accessories. The Informant has alleged that OP-1 has a dominant position in the relevant market of strong hybrid passenger vehicles in the territory of India and has violated provisions of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(c) of the Act. The Commission is of the view that the primary issue in the matter appears to be revolving around the waiting period in delivery of the car booked by the Informant and prices of accessories. The Commission notes that such kind of allegations bear the tone and tenor of inter se dispute between Informant and OP1/ OP2 and does not have market-wide anti-competitive ramifications, in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. Normall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght under Section 33 of the Act arises. - MS. RAVNEET KAUR CHAIRPERSON, MR. ANIL AGRAWAL MEMBER, MS. SWETA KAKKAD MEMBER AND MR. DEEPAK ANURAG MEMBER Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The present Information has been filed by Shri Balbir Singh Nagpal ( Informant ) under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 ( Act ) alleging contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. ( OP- 1 ) and Uttam Toyota ( OP-2 ) (collectively referred as Opposite Parties/ OPs ). 2. OP-1 is the Indian arm of Toyota Motor Corporation, which as per the Informant, is the largest automobile manufacturer having approximately 11.5% of the total market share in the global automobile industry. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h DSA assured guaranteed delivery in few days time for a premium of about Rs. 2.25 lakhs. 6. It has been alleged that OP-2 has adopted practices that are favouring a particular set of consumers and in turn ruining the market sentiment. It is stated that by creating an artificial scarcity, Resale Price Maintenance ( RPM ) is being imposed on end customers, thus having an appreciable adverse effect on competition ( AAEC ) in violation of Section 3(4) of the Act. 7. It is further stated that the booked car was delivered to the Informant on 05.04.2023. However, since the issues highlighted required a deeper insight, the Informant again raised these issues by way of legal notice dated 14.04.2023 to the Opposite Parties. 8. OP-1, in its response ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell aware that the consumers, who have once booked vehicles would be compelled to purchase the said vehicles, even if asked to pay a premium for early delivery. 11. It has been submitted that apart from the payments under various heads such as handling charges, extended warranty, Annual Maintenance Contract, which raise costs to almost 30% over and above ex-showroom price, OPs in, certain cases, compel buyers to purchase accessories at prices determined by them. This is another way of imposing conditions on the purchase of vehicles and increasing sale price. 12. The Informant has alleged that the conduct of the Opposite Parties i.e., first accepting bookings, then assigning arbitrary/ pick and choose policy for delivery of vehicle and in so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Information, including legal notices served by the Informant upon OP-1 and OP-2 and also their respective replies. The Informant appears to be primarily aggrieved by: (i) arbitrary change in delivery time of the car from two months to eight months; (ii) pick and choose policy in delivery of the car; (iii) unlawful demand of premium by DSAs; (iv) imposition of RPM; and (v) forcing customers to purchase accessories. The Informant has alleged that OP-1 has a dominant position in the relevant market of strong hybrid passenger vehicles in the territory of India and has violated provisions of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(c) of the Act. 17. At the outset, the Commission notes that OP-1, in its response dated 06.04.2023 to the Informant s notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the subject matter of antitrust scrutiny as they are dependent upon various factors including reasons adduced by the OP1. As regard price, the Commission is of the view that the same is an outcome of demand and supply forces in the market and consumer preferences, among others. In the present case, the Informant has failed to highlight whether such prices have overtone of being unfair or discriminatory in terms of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the allegations levelled above do not reveal any anti-competitive concern and consequently, the Commission finds no reason to carry out an analysis of abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Parties. 19. The allegation pertaining to RPM i.e., Section 3(4) of the Act requires the exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
