Complaint for Unfair Pricing Against Maruti Suzuki to Be Dismissed as Its Market Share in SUV Segment is Merely 22% | CCI

Case Details: Harmit Ahuja v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - [2024] 162 taxmann.com 406 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ms Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Anil Agrawal, Ms Sweta Kakkad & Deepak Anurag, Member

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, OP was a leading automobile manufacturer brand. The Informant/customer of OP booked a variant of an SUV car launched by OP and paid the booking amount before the car was delivered.

When booking of a said variant of the car decreased, OP reduced the price of the car and loaded the product with freebie accessories. The informant sent an email to OP seeking a refund that OP charged in excess for the car bought by him and OP refused a refund.

Consequently, the informant filed instant information, alleging OP for contravention of section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 on grounds that, OP abused its dominant position in market and imposed unfair pricing strategy with respect to car variant bought by informant.

Further, the informant stated that the new pricing strategy introduced variant was laced with several freebie accessories and extended warranty free of cost, which led to a downfall in resale prices of cars purchased by them.

It was noted that OP’s market share in the entire SUV segment of the passenger cars market was only 22%. Thus, OP did not hold a market share large enough to enable it to operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the market or to affect its competitors, consumers, or the market in its favour, and OP did not appear to be a dominant player in the market.

CCI Held

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) observed that the grievance raised by the informant was an inter-se dispute between the informant and OP regarding the price of the product sold by OP to the informant; no competition issue or concern arose from the facts and allegations stated by the informant.

The CCI held that no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of section 4 was made out against OP and matter was to be closed in terms of provisions contained in section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.