Hyundai Motor India fined for enforcing resale prices and specific lubricant use, violating competition rules.

The Commission determined that Hyundai Motor India Limited (HMIL) violated Section 3(4)(e) read with Section 3(1) of the Act through Resale Price Maintenance and Section 3(4)(a) read with Section 3(1) by mandating the use of specific lubricants. Consequently, HMIL was ordered to cease these practices and was penalized Rs. 87 crore, calculated at 0.3% of its average relevant turnover over the past three financial years. The penalty was required to be paid within 60 days of the order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to Deal
2. Resale Price Maintenance (RPM)
3. Tie-in Arrangements (CNG Kits, Lubricants, Car Insurance)
4. Abuse of Dominance (Section 4 of the Act)

Detailed Analysis:

Refusal to Deal [Section 3(4)(d)]:
The DG found that Hyundai Motor India Limited (HMIL) imposed an exclusive supply obligation and refusal to deal through Clause 5(iii) of the Dealership Agreement, which required dealers to seek prior permission before investing in any other business. However, the Commission observed that this clause did not result in de facto exclusivity as many dealers operated competing dealerships without seeking permission. The Commission concluded that Clause 5(iii) did not impose an exclusive supply obligation or refusal to deal, and thus, was not in contravention of Section 3(4)(b) or Section 3(4)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

Resale Price Maintenance [Section 3(4)(e)]:
The DG found that HMIL maintained a "Discount Control Mechanism" that fixed the maximum permissible discount levels, effectively creating a minimum resale price. This mechanism restricted intra-brand competition among Hyundai dealers. The Commission noted that such RPM practices can prevent effective competition and result in higher prices for consumers. The Commission concluded that HMIL's Discount Control Mechanism contravened Section 3(4)(e) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

Tie-in Arrangements [Section 3(4)(a)]:
1. CNG Kits: The DG found that HMIL tied the sale of its cars to the purchase of CNG kits from CEV Engineering Private Limited. However, the Commission concluded that cancellation of warranty upon use of non-CEV CNG kits could be objectively justified and did not amount to a contravention of Section 3(4)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

2. Lubricants: The DG found that HMIL mandated its dealers to purchase lubricants only from designated vendors (IOCL and Shell), foreclosing competition. The Commission concluded that such mandates amounted to a tie-in arrangement in contravention of Section 3(4)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

3. Car Insurance: The DG found that HMIL mandated the purchase of car insurance through Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Limited (ABIBL). However, the Commission observed that customers were not mandated to purchase insurance from ABIBL and could choose other insurers. Thus, the Commission concluded that HMIL did not violate Section 3(4)(a) of the Act regarding car insurance.

Abuse of Dominance (Section 4 of the Act):
The Commission noted that the DG's investigation into HMIL's abuse of dominance under Section 4 was beyond the scope of the Commission's directive, which only pertained to Section 3 violations. As such, the Commission disregarded the DG's findings related to Section 4 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Commission concluded that HMIL contravened the provisions of Section 3(4)(e) read with Section 3(1) of the Act through Resale Price Maintenance and Section 3(4)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Act by mandating the use of specific lubricants. HMIL was directed to cease and desist from these practices. A penalty of Rs. 87 crore was imposed on HMIL, calculated at 0.3% of its average relevant turnover for the last three financial years. The penalty was to be deposited within 60 days of the order.

---