Case No. 93 of 2016. Case: Shree Hari Inn Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 93 of 2016 |
| Judges | G.P. Mittal, J. (Member), Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital and Augustine Peter, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4 |
| Judgement Date | December 13, 2016 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
The present information has been filed by M/s. Shree Hari Inn Pvt. Ltd. ('the Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against M/s. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. ('the Opposite Party'/'OP') alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
-
It is stated that the Informant had purchased two Mercedes Benz buses from OP for commercial use in Kutch, Gujarat in the year 2012. It is averred that OP represented to the effect that its buses were well reputed all over the world and the Informant, believing the same, was the first person to purchase and use Mercedes Benz buses in the entire Kutch region. However, upon using the buses, it was found that the same were having manufacturing defects in the fuel tank. It is also stated by the Informant that OP was aware about the fact that there were hardly any efficient authorised service stations of Mercedes Benz in Gujarat (India). Even if there were any, they existed only on paper and did not provide any facility or parts of the buses. They also did not have the facility to repair the body damages, electrical services, Air Conditioner etc. Besides this, the OP had not provided any facility for service/repair of the LCDs that were installed in the buses and the parts thereof were not available in India as well.
-
The Informant has stated that it has suffered huge losses as the buses often remained at the service station for over 10 months due to which the Informant could not make profits or pay loan instalments on time. Further, when the Dual Cylinder Air Compressor of the buses did not work properly and they were taken to the authorised service centre of the OP i.e. Kataria Motors Pvt. Ltd., the Informant was charged different prices for replacing the same cylinders in two different buses. Even after the repairs, the issue of Dual Cylinder Air Compressor was not resolved. It is alleged that the bills raised by the service centre were also not reflected on the website of Daimler India Commercial Vehicle (DICV) which suggests that the original genuine parts were not fitted in the buses even when the Informant was charged for the original products. The prices for the spare parts charged were also higher than those provided on the boxes and the old parts were not even returned. The Informant is also aggrieved of not being informed about the warranty period of these spare parts despite...
To continue reading
Request your trial