Case No. 101 of 2016. Case: Sunil Kumar Jain Vs Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 101 of 2016 |
| Judges | Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter, U.C. Nahta, Members and G.P. Mittal, J. (Member) |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(1), 26(2), 4 |
| Judgement Date | March 14, 2017 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
-
The information in the instant matter has been filed by Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain (hereinafter, the "Informant") under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the "Act") against Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC (hereinafter, "OP-1"), AMP Motors Private Limited (hereinafter, "OP-2") and Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter, "OP-3") (collectively referred to as ("OPs") alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
-
As per the information, the Informant is an advocate practicing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. OP-1 is a British company that is headquartered in United Kingdom and is engaged in the manufacturing of 'Jaguar Land Rover' model car, which is now owned by Tata Motors. OP-2 is an authorised dealer of OP-1 in New Delhi and runs a workshop for Jaguar Cars in North India. OP-3, a joint venture of Future Group (India) and Generali (Italy), is a General Insurance Company in India.
-
It is stated that on 25th April, 2013, the Informant purchased a vehicle, viz., 'Jaguar XF 2.2 Diesel Luxury Automatic' (hereinafter, "Jaguar XF") from OP-2. The said vehicle was insured by 'Bharti AXA Life Insurance' for the first two years and in the third year, it was insured by OP-3.
-
The Informant submitted that on 24th June, 2015, his Jaguar XF got stuck on the road due to water logging in Dharuhera, Haryana. Accordingly, the same was dropped at the service centre of OP-2 for repairing. In the evening of the same day, an official of OP-2 informed the Informant that there was no damage to the engine but air filters were wet/damaged. The Informant was provided an estimate of Rs. 75,000/- for repairing and the same was agreed to by the Informant. Subsequently, OP-2, vide email dated 1st July, 2015, informed the Informant regarding diagnosis of another defect in his Jaguar XF, which may cost Rs. 35,000/- (approx.) and asked for the consent from the Informant. The Informant, vide email dated 4th July, 2015, replied to OP-2 stating "Please do the needful". However, the Informant did not receive any reply from OP-2 and again wrote an email on 13th July, 2015. In reply to the said e-mail, OP-2 stated that they were following up with the insurance company and will take a couple of days for diagnosing the problem.
-
Thereafter, the Informant received an e-mail dated 14th July, 2015 from OP-2, wherein an approximate estimate of Rs. 9,84,201/- was provided for repairing the engine of Jaguar XF. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial