Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Westfalia Separator India Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Alfa Laval Agri (India) Ltd. on 13 July, 2001
ORDER
Moksh Mahajan, Member
1. The question posed before us relates to the issue regarding maintainability of the present proceedings.
2. Briefly listed the facts are : Pursuant to the information that Dairy Development Department of the State of Punjab is in the process of procuring a milking parlour and a milk cooling tank for installation at Village Kal-Jharani in the State of Punjab, the applicant/informant No. 1 namely Westfalia Separator India Private Limited, approached the Punjab Government for procuring the purchase order. The respondent namely Alfa Laval Agri (India) Limited also approached the said authority for supply of the equipment. The purchase order was however given to the applicant/informant No. 1 along with the cheque of Rs. one lakh as advance towards instalment for purchase of milking parlours and milk cooling tank. The balance amount was to be handed over as per the terms of the purchase order. The informant No. 1 placed an order on applicant/informant No. 2 for supply of the said equipment in Germany. On 15.9.1998 however a fax was received from Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda that in view of some new developments the matter required to be discussed and the offer for installation of milking parlour is not to be acted upon till further orders. In response thereto the applicant/informant No. 1 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda that Mr. Pushpraj Verma, Sales and Service Engineer had proceeded to Germany and was arranging for early despatch of the equipment. On 17th September, 1998, the applicant/informant No. 1 was informed that the respondent had offered to donate the milking parlour free of cost at Village Kal-Jharani and unilaterally cancelled the contract for the same. The subsequent meeting with Deputy Commissioner of Bhatinda on 28th September, 1999, however, yielded no results.
3. On the above facts the contention of the applicant/infermant is that the donation of the equipment has led to the distortion/impairment of the competition in the market. It has been further contended that the sole object of the respondent in offering the milking parlour and milk cooling tank free of cost is to eliminate competition in the market, as there is no valid basis for cancellation of the purchase order. This clearly, as per contention, being a predatory tactic to sell its product in the market needs to be enquired into by the Commission and thus the respondent needs to be restrained from following such practices. The response of the respondent on the other hand is that the principals of the respondent have been associated with such like projects in dairy farming in India since 1997 in Punjab. It is at the request of the Punjab Government that the respondent has offered the equipment free of charge with the only condition that the same may be demonstrated to the people of the area making them aware of the latest technique available. The charge of adoption of predatory tactics to the sales is ill-founded. Since 1998, it was only sold two milky parlours in India. Cancellation of the contract is in no way connected with the donation of the equipment.
4. Both parties have been heard at length. Basically, the dispute is between two traders who have viewed with each other for procurement of contract from Punjab Government for the sale of their respective products. The competition is thus between the said traders. But for the Commission having taken note of the matter, the complaint otherwise would not have been entertainable under the provisions as invoked. Donation of the plant by the principal of the subsidiary not impleaded is at request of the Punjab Government, the bona fides of which have not been questioned. No doubt it has eliminated competition between the two traders, it has certainly reduced the cost of the project which is to ultimately benefit the consumer in particular and public at large. One may not brush aside the argument of donation being motivated by the object of increasing sales in near future, this has however not been established. The sale of two milking parlours since 1995 is an indicator to it. Primarily, the complaint filed has been motivated on account of the private interest of the parties and it has not been shown that the same has led to the restriction of compensation in the market There is also no material to show that as a result of the aforesaid step of the respondent, the respondent has gained pre-dominant position in the market and unjustified cost has been imposed as a result of conditions of delivery and price which has been manipulated. The applicant/informant has failed to establish the maintainability of proceedings initiated and we hold that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the proceedings are not maintainable. Accordingly, the NOE deserves and is directed to be discharged.