Competition Commission slaps Rs2,545 crore penalty on carmakers
Moneylife Digital Team 26 August 2014

The CCI penalised 14 carmakers, including Tata Motors, Maruti Suzuki, Honda and General Motors for abusing their dominant position by making available spare parts only through their authorised dealers, who in turn sell them at higher rates

 

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has slapped a penalty of Rs2,545 crore on 14 carmakers for violating trade norms in the spare-part and after-sale service market.

 

As per the complaint filed by Samsher Katatia in 2011, Honda Siel Cars India Ltd, Volkswagen India Pvt Ltd and Fiat India Auomobiles Ltd were accused of abusing their dominant position by making available spare parts only through their authorised dealers, who in turn sell them on high rates.

 

The companies penalised by the Commission include Maruti Suzuki, Tata Motors, Honda Siel Cars India, Volkswagen India, Fiat India, BMW India, Ford India, General Motors India, Hindustan Motors, Mahindra & Mahindra, Mercedes-Benz India, Nissan Motor India, Skoda Auto India and Toyota Kirloskar Motor.

 

“...the Commission’s primary objective is to correct the distortions in the after market, to provide corrective measures to make the market more competitive, to eradicate practices having foreclosure effects and to put an end to the present anti-competitive conduct of the parties. The aim of the Commission is to provide more freedom to Original Equipment Suppliers (OESs) in sale of spare parts, and more choice to consumers and independent repairers. The Commission considers it

necessary to (i) enable the consumers to have access to spare parts and also be free to choose between independent repairers and authorized dealers and (ii) enable the independent repairers participate in the after market and provide services in a competitive manner and to have access to essential inputs such as spare parts and other technical information for this purpose, as part of a more competitive eco-system which is equally fair to the OPs and their authorized network also,” the CCI mentioned in its order.

 

The penalty - 2% of these companies' average turnover in the past three years - will have to be deposited within 60 days of receipt of the order, the CCI said.

 

Tata Motors is penalised the maximum of Rs1,346 crore followed by Maruti Suzuki at Rs471 crore. Mahindra & Mahindra is asked to pay Rs292 crore, General Motors Rs85 crore and Honda Car India Rs78 crore by the Competition Commission.

 

In its order, the Commission said, "...anti-competitive conduct of the opposite parties impacts a very large number of consumers in the country estimated to be around two crore. Further, the anti-competitive conduct of the opposite parties has restricted the expansion of spare parts and independent repairers segment of the economy to its full potential, at the cost of the consumers, service providers and dealers. It is also noted that despite the fact that most attractive markets for the automobile manufacturers and some OPs (carmakers) have made consumer-friendly commitments in other jurisdictions like Europe, they have failed to adopt similar practices in India which would have gone a long way in significantly diluting their present anti-competitive conduct. This makes their conduct even more deplorable."

 

Earlier, in 2012, the Director General of CCI submitted a report after its investigation into the matter. The Commission was pursuing the case under Section 4 of the Competition Act that relates to abuse of dominant position by enterprises.

 

Comments
Dev
1 decade ago
Great ruling by CCI

Shri Shamsher Kataria - Informant

Sh. Sameer Oberoi, Sh. Aditya Patni, Advocates for Informant

Mr. Ashok Chawla, Chairman
Mr. Anurag Goel,Member
Mr. M. L. Tayal,Member

Thank you all



Veeresh Malik
1 decade ago
The full judgement can be read here

http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCom...

MoneyLife has written on this subject from 2010 onwards.

Some points which may be of interest to readers are listed here-

# Inherent right of buyer to free usage and upgrades of all proprietory software on single user basis for life-cycle of product as is the case with OS in computers. This has not been addressed at all.

# Safety aspect of not being provided with the above usage and upgrades of proprietory software which is installed in a vehicle purchased by consumer.

# The enquiry does not appear to include two-wheelers, three-wheelers and medium/heavy vehicle manufacturers in its ambit.

# 3.9.6 - even some generics like batteries are now make / model specific thanks to intervening technologies between battery and vehicle.

# 3.9.16 deals with refusal to manufacture or supply parts of a particular (type of) automobile which is still in use.

# 3.9.28 - transfer of an intellectual property right is not automatic from parent to subsidiary if it is only a technology transfer agreement, since IPRs are territorial in nature. Brilliant point!!!

# 3.9.29 - likewise, copyright protection claimed on design whether Indian or foreign is not automatic, needs to be registered in India, and if not registered, then ceases to exist once the said design has been used once the concerned design has been applied more than 50 times by industrial process by the owner of the copyright or his licensee.

# 3.9.30 "Confidentiality" protection is not automatic between OEM and OES, and need to be under the CCI Section 3 be satisfied that these are "trade secrets" , and trade secrets are not protected under IPR.

# 3.9.31 "Prior consent" is required by OES from OEMs for direct selling of spare parts which brings into question the issue of IPR, copyright, confidentiality or trade secret.

# 3.9.34 is the analysis of "appreciable adverse effect on competition" (AAEC) and for the first time possible, FADA (Federation of Automobile Dealers Associations) have come out in "c" against the manufacturers cause an AAEC to the dealers too! Not just the customers. Interesting.
Dev
1 decade ago
I was not aware of this fact.

Now onwards if spare parts of my car is over charged I will take them to Court.

Who is the Petitioner?

I really think he SHOULD be awarded
Veeresh Malik
1 decade ago
Some points on this order.

# Inherent right of buyer to free usage and upgrades of all proprietory software on single user "per vehicle" basis for life-cycle of product as is the case with OS in computers. This has not been addressed at all.

# Safety aspect of not being provided with the above usage and upgrades of proprietory software which is installed in a vehicle purchased by consumer.

# The enquiry does not appear to include two-wheelers, three-wheelers and medium/heavy vehicle manufacturers in its ambit.

# 3.9.6 - even some generics like batteries are now make / model specific thanks to intervening technologies controlling power supply and safety between battery and vehicle.


MOHAN
1 decade ago
Car makers were indeed guilty of violating trade norms as they failed to make their genuine spare parts available freely in the open market.

Great Order.
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback