Case No. 64 of 2015. Case: Arvind Sood Vs Hyundai Motor India Ltd.. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 64 of 2015
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter, U.C. Nahta, M.S. Sahoo, Members and G.P. Mittal, J. (Member)
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 3, 3(1), 3(3), 4
Judgement DateSeptember 29, 2015
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Order:

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

  1. The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') by Shri Arvind Sood (hereinafter referred to as the 'Informant') against Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OP') alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of section 3 and 4 of the Act.

  2. Facts of the case, in brief, may be noted.

  3. As per the information, OP is the second largest manufacturer of motor cars & Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs). It is averred that OP has launched its new SUV in the name of 'Hyundai Creta (SUV)' in competition with SUVs like Ford Eco Sport, Renault Duster, Mahindra XUV and Nissan Terrano, Tata Safari, Mitsubishi Out Lander who are all well established players in the Indian market and also control an appreciable market share.

  4. The Informant states that OP had started booking of Hyundai Creta, through its 700 authorised dealers who are located in the State capitals and Tier-A cities from 07.06.2015 with a booking amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- or even Rs. 25,000/-. The Informant has delineated the relevant market in the information as the State capitals in India and Tier-A cities. OP is stated to have given lucrative gifts to the media people for wide publication of its Hyundai Creta. By paying initial booking amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the Informant had booked Hyundai Creta on 13.07.2015 from Koncept Cars India Pvt. Ltd.

  5. OP is alleged to have collected Rs. 900/- crores (approx.) through booking from the customers without providing details of the product i.e. price, availability, mode of allotment/sale, waiting period, variants, service procedure, policy regarding cancellation of booking etc. It is alleged that OP lured the Informant to book the said vehicle.

  6. It is further stated that OP had advised its authorized dealers to retain the booking amount aggregating to Rs. 900 crores till the launch of the said vehicle. OP is, thus, alleged to have entered into anti-competitive agreements in terms of section 3(1) of the Act. It is also averred that the conduct of OP in adopting unfair means to collect the booking amount for the said vehicle which was not launched in the market, has appreciably affected the business of other SUV and car manufacturers. It is further alleged that OP has engaged in a cartel like behaviour with its dealers in violation of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act.

  7. Contravention of...

To continue reading

Request your trial