Case No. 86 of 2014. Case: Bhasin Motors (India) Private Limited Vs Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 86 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Apar Gupta and Tariq Khan, Advocates |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4 |
| Judgement Date | February 11, 2015 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
-
The present information has been filed by M/s Bhasin Motors (India) Private Limited ('the Informant') under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against M/s Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited ('the Opposite Party'/OP), alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act.
-
Facts, as gathered from the information, may be briefly noted:
-
The Informant is a company which deals with the distribution of cars in Delhi/NCR regions. It is stated to be an authorised dealer of the Opposite Party for the territory of Delhi/NCR regions. The Opposite Party is a company that manufactures and sells automotives. It offers cars through dealerships in India. It operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG.
-
It is stated in the information that a Dealer Agreement dated 10.02.2012 was executed between the parties and after a year another 'Basic Agreement for Sales and Purchase of Volkswagen Products' dated 09.05.2013 was executed between the Informant and OP for marketing, sales and service of the Volkswagen products. It is further stated that as per the Agreement dated 09.05.2013, the Informant was allotted the territory of Delhi/NCR Region.
-
The Informant alleged that OP with a view to increase its sales and to the detriment and loss of the Informant, appointed another dealer viz. M/s Frontier Automobile Pvt. Ltd. in the vicinity of the Informant's showroom despite clearly demarcating the territories as agreed in their agreement. It is alleged that this has impacted the demand for cars from the Informant's showroom and was contrary to the agreed promises between the parties. It is further averred in the information that OP has discriminated between the dealers and has given higher targets to the new dealer as compared to other dealers.
-
The Informant stated that as per the said agreement it was required to establish a line of credit with OP to place orders for cars which would then be supplied by OP. This line of credit could be established either through the sanction of a line of credit by a financial institution or through the submission of a bank guarantee. It is further stated that OP, through its concern Volkswagen Finance Private Limited, sanctioned a credit facility on 04.02.2013 for a sum of Rs. 18 crores in favour of the Informant but failed to disburse the funds. It also mentioned that the rate of interest which was payable under the terms of the said sanction letter was on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial