Competition Commission of India
Dr. Deepa Narula C/O Mr. Prashant Narula vs Taneja Developers And Infrastructures ... on 6 September, 2012
CQiVfl"ETI".§."f0N COMB/EESSIGN BF INIHA Case No. ZZIZGIZ 6"" Sci), 2312 Dr. Deepa Narnia 'irsformani:
C/as Mr. Prasimnt Namia B-1./602 A, Janak Puri New §}eEh'i~ 110358 T-(meja Bevelapers '(E353 Eni'mstrue€u1*e§ Ltd. Gppesite Pa my 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Beihi --~ f1}.8GOfi Greer umier Section 26 €2}' of Cempefitimi Act 1?.;.{}{}~2 The instant: informatien has been filed by Dr. Deepa Narnia {£nfo1'"m.an1;) we 19(1) (a) of the Ciompetition Act, 2002 ('the Act') againsi TVL's. Taneja Devempers and Infz'e$truct11reS Ltd. (Opposite Party) ailegixlg abuse of dominarlce positien by GP.
2. As per the infonnaticm, the informam; is a Non Resident. lndiz-1n, eum°e11t.1y residing in New Deihi. The Opposite Pa1"t:y is a real estate deveioper engaged in the business of deveioping and :se1iing rc-.:sidentia§ and conlmercial properties havi11gits registered office at New Deihi. 'me informam subznitted that reEyi1"1g upon the assurzmeee of the OP to deliver the p1'opert_\;' within the time beund manner, Knformam on 1"---04~EOD5, booked a. <:.ommer'cie} pic}: measuring 23.04 Sq. yards at a p1'iC.<: of rupees E9e,3~(f30er'-- per Sq. yards in an upcoming reai estate pmjeci of the OP named as TD]. City 1\='2'.oha§i.. The infermant compiicszd wizh all ,,,,_._.,,,,q,_. .--,,,,/,4,-4.-a.-.~.-«.< ~ ~.-- -
xiii May 20% aggaiiist the 'e0e:>1»:.i1'ig of me pint. The OP iiad aceiepted beokingefadvance amounts agaizist the said projieez: even though it was stiii on paper and the necessary appmvais for the same had not yet been i'eceived. Though an emeunt of Rs. 12 Laiahs was taker: from the informant in April 2006, it was only in .Fariua.i"y .2008, the approval of TDI City Mohaii from the .Punja.bi Government was received. Informeirit had not been ziiiotteci any pie: by the OP Ciaveiopei' {iii new f-.'.\?€I'l after Si): .year.s from the date of booking.
3. }.n.'fo.i'ina:1t alleged that D? abused its domirianf positicii in the relevant maiket ef Mohaii by withholding informant's deposited money and not providing, any infermatic)n regardiiig deveiopnient of the project. At the time of banking, O}? was the saie deveioper with unique pizm of developing a residentiai cum commercial prejeet in Mcshaii. In April 2005 it had assured the Zrifermant te i'k.a1'ld0\'B1' possessimi within 3 years and thereafter, gave a fresh commitment of completion within another 2 years from the date of bhoomi 'ps3o_ian ie. 22"
January, 2908 but there was :10 Sign of compietion (if the project even after elapse of further four years since then.
4. The Infermant aiso evened that a person desirous 0f booking, a piet with the Gppesite Party was required to accept the onerous and uriiiaterai terms and cenditions. OP had iiiegaiiy and arbitmriiy withheld the inf0i'.m2u1t's money and thus, his right tn access other builders for purchase of commercial pie: in the relevant market had been vftiated. The consequence ef the arbitrary action of OP resulted in deniai of market access to the informant under Section 4(?.)( C) of the Competition Act, 2092 and the same constituted. abuse of dem.ina:rit pesitien under section 4(1) of the Clcmipetiticm Act, 2002..
5. in order to determine whether an enterprise is abusing its dominant pesizion er not, it is necessary 1:0 first <.ie'iemiine the relevant market in which that parficuiar enteiprise was alleged to be in 2. dominant positicm. The secoiid issue wouid be whether the enteiprise abused its domiiiam position in any manner in that relevant market in terms of Section 4 of the Act.
6.. The reievant pmdiict market in this ceise wouiii be "services jm'e\?icied by developers ef apartmems to 'the c.(msuniei's'" and the relevant ge0gi'aphi«:t inarket would be geogra.;:>hic area of the district of Imohaii, Pimjab. Section .20) oftiie Act defines 21 ".l'€it3\?ai'1t product inariaet" a market c0mp1'iSing of 213} such products which are regarded as 'imerehangeabie er sLi'cnstimt21i'_>ie by the consumer, py i'E33f.S0i'l of charac.te1'isi.i<:s of the pmducis or services, *Lhei.r prices and imtetided use. For 2. consumer the s3erviees of d.eve10ipers of resicien'{iai Cum eommereiai projects in the geoigraphic. area must be intei'charigeable I a doniinant piaayex' in the relevant mariiet.
$3hg;~s1c'Leri.siiscsi, price or 'iixteiicied use and canseq pmx./_id,¢-3 by sveiopcrs of such similar interchangeabie, "within the given znarket and th uemiy, for a c<3nsuir1e1' services 3paI'E2'1'1EF1i, projects in Mcshaii are price band. Therefore, the reievantipr0duc;t e reievam: geographic ma:'i«:.c:t, the 1't'fii{':V.3I'1i.' maxim: wcauici fie "the ma:'ke;'t for services provided by deve3Ecspt:i's of apartments to the C.0nsumers in the grzographisz area of district. Mcshaii, Punjab."
7. The deminarrt position of any developer dezpends upcm various factors like its share in the reievant market, si,:r:.t': and resources {if the enterprise, econoniic:
power of the: enterprises, ccnsumers 0f the f.'.11tE5i"}'J1'iSe_, the 1121* Lure cf projects being handled by it by it and other factors enumc-:rated in section 191(4) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act which dc.-ais with abuse of dQI'!1iI'}.ZiI1CB for enterprises in India was netified in May 2009. Thus acts sf abuse by dominant enterprises prior to the period Of May 2309 cannot be: c.0nsideré:d by the Commission beyond the jiirisdimion of the Cammission can be cansidered the cammissien, aniy where such acts (if abuse, seem" afisr May 20095 when the reiex/ant pmvisimis 0f the Act, dealing with abuse sf dominance? has been brmzght into effect.
and is . Abuss of dominance by enterprises 89 It is noted that TD} City Mohaiini project is spread ever an area of 280 acres approx. and TD} City -~ 'H is spread over an area of about is a noted player in real estate business with its compietedf can going projectsf tswniships at i<I.und.aii, So nepat, Gurgaon, Panipat, Mohali, Moradabari, Meerut, indore, Agra etc. It is aiso a. fact that there are otiier res} ssiate piayers having significant presence in the 1'eievant market, e.g. Pearis Erifrastructure with a mega tawnship spread over an area of 500 acres.
9. It is stat:-3d by inibrmant that on payrnem; of booking amount and subsequmit instaiments, infomczant became cvapm:'sdi customer with iittie choice of exit, thus OP should be ccmsiidered as a dominant €I}'C€:l'p1'iS~E. Doniinance of an enterprise is to assessed on the basis of its ma1'k.et share and strength Vis a via other »piayers in the reievamt market and not vis a vis custoziier. The plea is therefore um:-tnabie.
.18. It is iioted from i.nf0rmation avaiiabi are various ongoing C01"Y1I'l"i€I'f:ifli projsc; C&C Mmiaii Deveiopers, Si:
6: in pubiic d0ma'i.n that in M(ihaii, thsre. is of devsiopars like Unitech, Bestech, .iurig'.ti0n, Psarls inf-."asti'11ctu:'e? Emaar MGF, Parsvnath apoorji Pai10n_ii.& Co. Md. em, besides that of the OF.
11%.. On the basis of the isformation stated above, it can not be said that OP wa,s There is no other materiai on record to show that the OP was 21 daininam piayer in the 1'eie\:ant n1a:'ia=.2t.
158 acres. TDI gmup ' ,/,,,w/»;a, .,.. mm .,..A,. .~».A.~ - ' ' '
12. On a c;a.refuE <:0nsic1e.rai}<:m 0f ifnrc: entire. nmttez, the Commission is of Tim V'iC£\~'V that based on the facts of the case as stated in the information, the dT0111inanAc£:: cf TD': in the relevaxat market does mt get eflabiished. The Cornmission accordixngiy hhaicis that prima facie no case w direcéing the Director General (D6) under Section i;1Ves'iigati0n into the matter.
as made out for 26(1_"} 05 the Act to c011duc,i
13. in View of foregoing, the C0m.missi<>n deems it fit to chose th , E,' pmceedings of the case under Section 26(2) ofthe Act. '
14. The Secretaly is directed to cemmunicate the decision of the Commission to the infcermant accordingly.
W" ' sag:
_'5§3 Membe1°{:%.fi}
36.»: T A ;; V % Eviiaaszhar { 33(3) §§ {T} Maggi: {S} gig"
fiiaairgerscsn