Tuesday , December 6 2016
Home / Business / Automobile / CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Maruti Suzuki

CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Maruti Suzuki

maruti-suzuki

New Delhi: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Friday rejected a complaint of anti-competitive practices made against Maruti Suzuki India, the country’s largest car manufacturer.

It was alleged that Maruti Suzuki abused its dominant market position by imposing unfair conditions for transporting its vehicles through car carrier trucks (CCTs).

As per the complaint, the company produces half the country’s cars and uses 50 per cent of CCTs in the country.

For the case, fair trade regulator CCI considered ‘market for transportation of light vehicles in India through CCTs’ as the relevant market.

Citing CMIE data, the watchdog said the company had a market share of about 40 per cent with a production of 13.08 lakh cars in 2014-15.

The share comes down further if the transport of other new light vehicles through CCTs is considered. It slips further if the transport of old light vehicles is considered, CCI said.

“Therefore, OP (Maruti Suzuki) does not appear to be a dominant consumer in the relevant market. In the absence of dominance of the opposite party, its conduct need not be examined under the provisions of the Section 4 of the Act,” CCI said in a recent order.

Section 4 of the Competition Act pertains to abuse of dominant market position.

According to CCI, the company may need services of CCTs of a particular description in the sense that CCT uses a particular type of VTS (Vehicle Tracking System).

In comparison to the charges of CCTs, the subscription charge for VTS is insignificant, the commission said, adding that therefore, the act of securing interests through use of a particular type of VTS cannot be considered anti-competitive.

It was also alleged by the complainant that the company manufactures and sells more cars in the National Capital Region (NCR) than other states.

PTI

Read Also

Rape victim

2010 rape case: Delhi man discharged as FIR lodged 6 years later

8