Case No. 82 of 2016. Case: Debabrat Mishra Vs Daimler Financial Services India Private Limited and Ors. Competition Commision of India

Case Number:Case No. 82 of 2016
Party Name:Debabrat Mishra Vs Daimler Financial Services India Private Limited and Ors
Judges:Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahta, Members and G.P. Mittal, J. (Member)
Issue:Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 2(r), 2(t), 26(2), 3, 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 3(4)(a), 3(4)(b), 4, 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 4(2)(e)
Judgement Date:February 02, 2017
Court:Competition Commision of India


  1. Mr. Debabrat Mishra (hereinafter, the 'Informant') has filed the present information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the "Act") against Daimler Financial Services India Private Limited (hereinafter, 'OP-1'), Mercedes Benz India Private Limited (hereinafter, 'OP-2'), Autohanger (hereinafter, 'OP-3') and Mercedes Financial Services (hereinafter, 'OP-4'), (collectively referred to as 'OPs'), alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

  2. As per the information, the Informant is a Director of Ubqool Futuretech Private Limited, which is engaged in the business of providing educational consultancy services. OP-1 is a financing company and provides lease financing services only for the vehicles manufactured by OP-2 and other subsidiary companies of Daimler AG. OP-2 is a manufacturer of vehicles sold under the brand name "Mercedes-Benz". OP-3 is the exclusive authorized dealer/repairer of vehicles manufactured by OP-2 and OP-4 provides finance exclusively for the vehicles manufactured by OP-2. Daimler AG, Stuttgart, Germany is the parent company of OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4.

  3. The Informant has submitted that he wanted to buy a "Mercedes Benz C Class" vehicle. However, citing lack of eligibility, OP-1 declined to provide finance to the Informant. Thereafter, he was contacted by OPs regarding the launch of new GL edition vehicle and with the availability of lease finance option for the same. OP-3, vide email dated 24th January, 2012, sent lease quotations for two vehicle model, viz., ML 350 CDI Executive Grand Edition and new GL 350 CDI Executive Grand Edition (hereinafter, "GL 350") to the Informant. Subsequently, OP-4, vide email dated 8th February, 2012, provided the lease scheme for GL 350 to the Informant. Accordingly, the Informant entered into a Lease Agreement dated 27th February, 2012, with OP-1, for a term of 3 years for availing the services of a GL 350 model vehicle against a total consideration of Rs. 88,97,076/-.

  4. It is alleged by the Informant that certain clauses of the aforesaid lease agreement are abusive and they are as follows:

    1. The lessee is not entitled to make any alteration in the car without the prior consent of the lessor;

    2. The lessor and its agents are entitled to the repossession of the car on occurrence of any default;

    3. The lessee must compensate the lessor for any loss the lessor suffers as a result of the car not being maintained in good working...

To continue reading