Case No. 52 of 2012. Case: Exclusive Motors Pvt. Limited Vs Automobili Lamborghini S.P.A.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 52 of 2012 |
| Judges | Ashoka Chawla (Chairman), H.C. Gupta, Member (G), R. Prasad Member, Dr. Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D) |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 19(4), 2(h), 2(t), 26 (2), 26(1), 26(2), 3, 3(3)(a), 3(4)(c), 4, 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c) |
| Judgement Date | November 06, 2012 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002
-
The present information has been filed by Exclusive Motors Pvt. Limited ('the informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. ('the opposite party') alleging inter-alia contravention of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act. The informant claimed to be in the business of importing and selling of 'Super Sports Cars' in the territory of Delhi. The opposite party is well known manufacturer of Super Sports Cars. The opposite party is the subsidiary of Audi Ag which in turn is a part of Volkswagen group. Volkswagen group is stated to own majority of luxury car brands such as Audi, SEAT, Lamborghini, Volkswagen, Skoda, Bentley, Bugatti and Porsche.
-
Briefly stated, the informant alleged that it was appointed as the importer and dealer of Super Sports Cars manufactured by the opposite party in 2005 by way of a Dealership Agreement. Thereafter, the informant invested substantial time, efforts and money to develop Indian market for opposite party's cars which was negligible prior to this agreement. Sometime in 2011, the opposite party appointed its own group company, Volkswagen Group Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Volkswagen India) as exclusive importer of opposite party's cars and the informant was requested (through a letter dated 24.01.2012) to terminate the existing dealership agreement with the opposite party and to bring in place a fresh dealership agreement with Volkswagen India. The new agreement entailed a larger deposit amount and the notice period required for termination was sought to be reduced from 12 months to 3 months. The informant, therefore, did not agree to the new arrangement. In response to this, the opposite party withdrew the new arrangement and served a 12 month's notice to the informant for terminating the existing dealership agreement entered between them in 2005. It is alleged that during the notice period the opposite party had offered its products to the informant at a much higher price than its own company i.e. Volkswagen India thereby adopting discriminatory pricing policy.
-
The informant, therefore, alleged contravention of section 3 and 4 of the Act. The agreements of the opposite party with its group company (Volkswagen India) and its Partner (Auto-Hanger) are alleged to be anti competitive and in contravention of section 3(3)(a) as they directly determine sale and purchase price of the car. Also, the exclusive distribution agreement between opposite party and its group company Volkswagen India is alleged to be in violation of section 3(4)(c) of the Act since it excluded the informant and other prospective dealers to become the importers and dealers of opposite party products. With regard to section 4, the informant considered the relevant market as market for 'distributing super sports cars in India'...
To continue reading
Request your trial