Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 8 of 2013 10/04/2013 Mr. Keerthy Krishnan & Others Informants and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) Mumbai OP-1 Regional LPG Manager (South) BPCL, Chennai OP-2 Territory Manager, BPCL, LPG filling Plant Kochi Refinery OP-3 Territory Manager, BPCL, LPG Bottling Plant Coimbatore OP-4 (collectively 'Opposite Parties') ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002 Informants are LPG Cylinder Transporters of Public Sector Oil / LPG Marketing Companies in the State of Kerala and Tamil Nadu engaged in the business of transportation of LPG Cylinders for the last two decades. The opposite parties comprise of OP 1, the oil marketing company, and its various officials.

4. The informants contended that since the distribution of LPG cylinders was a distinct and separate service from the transportation business of LPG cylinders, there was no logic or rationale in reserving the contract for transportation to the distributors. The Informants also raised the issue that the profit making locations were being reserved for distributors, who were covering 65% of the total work effective kilometer with 50% trucks whereas the trucks of the informants were forced to operate for 35% of the total work with 50% trucks.

9. Considering the relevant product market and relevant geographic market as defined above, the relevant market in the present case would be "the services of transportation of goods by trucks in the territory of India". In this relevant market, OP 1 is not the only service procurer in this relevant product market. Besides OP 1, the Informants can also provide their services to other parties. Trucks are not only used for transportation of LPG Cylinders but can also be used for transportation of other goods and services. Transportation of LPG Cylinders does not require specially designed trucks and the same trucks can be used for transporting other types of goods and services. Thus, the submission of the informant that the truck transportation services is especially utilised by the LPG Cylinder transporters is not acceptable. In this relevant market, apart from other Oil Marketing Companies there are also other players which hire the services of trucks for transportation of goods by road. There are many other sectors such as cement, cereals, etc which depend upon truck transport agencies for transportation of their products. Thus, it appears that there are enough players for hiring truck transportation services in the India. So, OP 1 does not prima facie appear to be a dominant procurer of the services of trucks for transportation of goods.

10. Since, OP 1 does not appear to be a dominant buyer/procurer of the services of trucks for transportation of goods by road as alleged by the Informants, the question of abuse of dominance by it does not arise. Even otherwise, none of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act are applicable in the instant case. It is the sole discretion of OP 1 to decide as to how it wants to perform the operation of distribution of LPG cylinders. It could distribute the goods on its own or through a tender by hiring transport services. The decision of OP 1 to introduce changes in the existing practice of delivery of LPG cylinders, based on hiring transport services selected through a tender, to a new model which is partly based on open tender and partly based on agreement with its distributors cannot be inferred to be anti-competitive or denial of market access. Therefore, the facts stated in the information do not provide sufficient material to initiate an investigation for contravention of section 4 of the Act.