Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.83 seconds)The Competition Act, 2002
Builders Association Of India vs Cement Manufacturers' Association & ... on 20 June, 2012
20. Before parting with the present order, the Commission notes that the Informant
has placed reliance on the Commission's judgement of Builders Association v.
Cement Manufacturers Association & Ors, (Case No. 29 of 2010 decided on
31.08.2016) in support of his allegations and has demanded its uniform
application in the present case. It has been alleged that as the trade association of
cement manufacturers (Cements Manufactures Association) facilitated a cartel of
cement companies in the said case through traditional mode, Ola/Uber has
facilitated a cartel of drivers in a digital mode and should be accorded a similar
Case No. 37 of 2018 11
treatment/liability under the Act. The Commission finds this argument devoid of
an understanding of economic literature and practical realties of the digital
markets. The situation of cement manufacturers colluding through a trade
association is different from an App providing taxi/cab services. If drivers were
colluding using an App as a platform, the said arrangement would have amounted
to cartelisation; however, this cannot be equated with the facts of the present
cases as demanded by the Informant. Ola and Uber are not an association of
drivers, rather they act as separate entities from their respective drivers. In the
present situation, a rider books his/her ride at any given time which is accepted
by an anonymous driver available in the area, and there is no opportunity for such
driver to coordinate its action with other drivers. This cannot be termed as a cartel
activity/conduct through Ola/Uber's platform.
Fx Enterprise Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs Hyundai Motor India Limited (36/2014) ... on 14 June, 2017
10. The Informant has further alleged that Ola/Uber and its drivers are in a vertical
relationship wherein Ola/Uber imposes a minimum price level on the drivers,
resulting in a contravention of Resale Price Maintenance under Section 3(4)(e) of
the Act. The Informant has stated that Ola/Uber's algorithm determines the price,
below which drivers cannot charge which results in a minimum fixed price. The
Informant has relied upon the Commission's order in Fx Enterprise Soultions
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor India Limited, Case no. 36 and 82 of 2014,
decided on 14.06.2017, wherein the Commission observed that an agreement that
has as its direct or indirect object in the establishment of a fixed or minimum
resale price level, may restrict competition. It has been submitted that the
Commission had emphasised the linkage between intra-brand price competition
and its subsequent impact on inter-brand price competition in the said case, which
Case No. 37 of 2018 5
is particularly significant from a pricing perspective and therefore, affects the
ultimate consumer.
(6 Of 2015) Fast Track Call Cab Pvt. Ltd vs Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (74 Of 2015) ... on 19 July, 2017
22. Moreover, in Fast Track Call Cabs vs. ANI Technologies (Case No. 06 and 74 of
2015 decided on 19.07.2017), the Commission considered Ola as a radio taxi
operator and not merely as a platform.
1