Case No. 65 of 2016. Case: Rishabraj Logistics Limited Vs Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Limited and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 65 of 2016 |
| Judges | G.P. Mittal, J. (Member), Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 2(r), 26(2), 3, 3(3), 3(4), 4 |
| Judgement Date | December 06, 2016 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
The present information is filed by M/s. Rishabraj Logistics Limited through its Company Manager Mr. Rajendra Mansinghka, (hereinafter, the 'Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the 'Act') against M/s. ORIX Auto Infrastructure Services Limited, (hereinafter, 'OP-1'), M/s. Ericsson India Global Services Private Limited (hereinafter, 'OP-2'), M/s. Capital Connect Taxi Services (hereinafter, 'OP-3'), M/s. ORIX Leasing & Financial Services India Limited (hereinafter, 'OP-4') and M/s. Falta Special Economic Zone (hereinafter, 'OP-5') alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
-
The Informant is a public limited company registered at Kolkata and is engaged in the business of providing passenger transport services by way of certain vehicles alongwith drivers on hire/rental basis. OP-1, a subsidiary of ORIX Corporation, Japan (ORIX), is engaged in the business of car rental services. OP-2 is a wholly owned Swedish subsidiary of Ericsson (Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson) engaged in the business of Information Technology (IT) and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES). It has a unit that operates from the Falta Special Economic Zone/OP-5 in Kolkata. OP-3 is stated to be a proprietary concern, working for the gains of OP-1. OP-4, as per the information available on OP-1's website, is a Non-Banking Financial Company (i.e. Loan Company) and is a wholly owned subsidiary of OP-1. OP-5 is stated to be a Special Economic Zone ('SEZ') which is added as a proforma party by the Informant. As such, no allegation is made against OP-5 in the information.
-
It is averred that the Informant came in contact with OP-1 during May-June, 2015 for rendering car rental services which OP-1 required for its client company i.e. OP-2. The Informant, vide email dated 8th October, 2015, proposed to furnish 18 vehicles to OP-1. Vide email dated 13th October 2015, OP-1 proposed a 'revenue model' of Rs. 1.05 lacs to Rs. 1.15 lacs for hiring Tata Sumo AC vehicles from the Informant for 30 days, with 24 hours duty along with 2 drivers each and sent a copy of the draft 'Transport Service Agreement' in which the first party was OP-1 and second party was shown as 'Vendor'. Subsequently, vide email dated 15th October, 2015, OP-1 proposed a 'revenue sharing model' in the ratio 33% and 67% between OP-1 and the Informant, respectively.
-
Informant has claimed that after receipt of the letter dated 29th December, 2015 regarding the confirmation of vehicle deployment from OP-1, it purchased 10 new vehicles, which were in addition to the 8 vehicles already owned by it. Further, the Informant also provided 19 GPS tracking devices (18 tracking devices for 18 vehicles and 1 extra for emergency) to OP-1. It is stated that the Informant dispatched all the vehicles to OP-1 through its drivers on 6th January, 2016. OP-1 provided training to the Informant's drivers and the first duty was allotted to them on 8th January, 2016.
-
It is alleged that OP-1 had agreed to allocate duty in respect of all the vehicles deployed by the Informant, however, since day one, OP-1 started abusing its dominant position and neglected to offer proper duty to the Informant's drivers, in defiance of the agreed terms. The Informant is stated to have approached the higher authorities of OP-1 also in April, 2016 for an amicable solution. Thereafter, OP-1 sent another Transport Services Agreement on 5th April, 2016, bearing the date of execution as 12th January, 2016 (hereinafter, the 'Agreement'). The execution date was further changed to 8th January, 2016 when objected by the Informant as the first duty to the Informant's drivers was allotted on this date. It is averred that the said Agreement referred to the Informant as 'Sub-vendor' whereas the earlier draft agreement provided on 13th October, 2015 referred to the service provider as the 'Vendor'. Further, the Agreement mentioned OP-3 as the vendor whom the Informant had allegedly never met.
-
The Informant has alleged that the Agreement contained various anticompetitive clauses, either being restrictive in nature or amounting to abuse of dominant position by OP-1. Some of the clauses, along with the grievance of the Informant with regard to each of them, are illustrated below:
"i) Schedule II, Clause 1 provides that "[t]he Sub Vendor shall provide the services round the clock during the agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial