Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.3 While defining the relevant product market as 'market for provision of services for development and sale of low cost residential flats under affordable housing schemes for EWS', the DG distinguished between affordable flats allotted under EWS schemes and flats allotted under non-EWS schemes by the OP such as flats for Low Income Group (LIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG). It is noted in the DG's report that the price of flats allotted under EWS schemes by the OP are low due to cross-subsidisation as against the flats under LIG and MIG categories. It is also noted that the procedure for allotment of flats by GDA is different and is based on draw of lots whereas in case of private developers the buyer of a flat has liberty to select a flat of his choice. Further, certain eligibility criteria are prescribed for allotment of flats under housing schemes of GDA whereas private developers do not specify any eligibility criteria for sale of their flats. Moreover, unlike allottees of MIG and LIG flats, allottees of EWS flats are restricted from transferring the flats allotted to them for a certain period of time. The DG has thus, contended that low cost residential flats under an affordable housing scheme for EWS are not substitutable with any other type of residential flats available to the end users.

26. The Commission observes that EWS flats fall in a distinct category and they are not substitutable with MIG and LIG flats. The Government of Uttar Pradesh had issued an order on 05.12.2013 revising the income limit of EWS allottees to Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum and LIG allottees from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum. Further, cost of EWS flats under the Scheme (Rs. 2,00,000/) was much less than the cost of LIG flats (Rs. 9,89,000/-) and MIG flats (Rs. 15,44,000/-). In view of the significant cost difference between LIG flats, MIG flats and EWS flats as well as the income eligibility criteria, the Commission holds that EWS flats constitute a separate product.

changeable or substitutable under similar conditions of competition and are distinct from the neighbouring areas. The Commission is of the view that the entire region of NCR cannot be said to be one market because there are considerable differences in the conditions of competition for EWS flats in the different cities in NCR. Even if there is a 5% increase in the price of the EWS flats in Ghaziabad, consumer's preference will not change since there are other external factors such as transportation cost etc. which influence the decision of the consumers while purchasing EWS flats.

33. The DG has also reported that consumers of EWS flats in Ghaziabad are primarily dependent on GDA for their needs as they do not have enough options available in Ghaziabad. It is observed from the DG's report that the OP had launched more schemes than its competitors during the said period and the number of applicants registered with the OP is much higher than those registered with UPAVP. The ratio of the number of applicants and number of allottees of the OP during 2008 to 2015 was 7:1 whereas it was 3:1 in case of UPAVP. This indicates consumers' preference for the EWS flats launched by GDA as compared to UPAVP. Further, the Commission observes that a consumer would not switch over to similar type of flats available in the adjacent areas of Ghaziabad even if there is a small increase in the price of EWS flats in Ghaziabad. Other factors like consumer preference, transport, distance etc. may prevent the consumers from switching their purchase to other adjacent regions of Ghaziabad. Thus, the buyers may not possess enough countervailing power in this scenario.