Judgment Overturns Order Due to Flawed Inquiry and Lack of Evidence in Competition Case.

The judgment annulled the order dated 14th June 2017, finding fault with the Commission for basing its conclusions solely on the Director General's report without specific evidence. The Commission's failure to properly determine the relevant market and conduct a thorough inquiry under Sections 19 and 26 of the Competition Act, 2002, was highlighted. Consequently, the Appellant was entitled to a refund of any amount deposited under the interim order dated 18th July 2017, with no imposition of costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Section 3(4)(e) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Resale Price Maintenance).
2. Contravention of Section 3(4)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Mandating use of recommended lubricants and oils).
3. Allegations of exclusive dealership arrangements and refusal to deal.
4. Allegations of price collusion and hub-and-spoke arrangements.
5. Determination of relevant market.
6. Violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Inquiry procedure under Section 19 and Section 26 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contravention of Section 3(4)(e) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Resale Price Maintenance):

The Commission held that Hyundai Motor India Limited (Hyundai Motor) contravened these provisions through arrangements resulting in Resale Price Maintenance (RPM). The DG's report noted that Hyundai Motor fixed the ex-showroom price of cars and maintained a "Discount Control Mechanism" which restricted the maximum discount dealers could offer to consumers. The Commission observed that Hyundai Motor engaged in various mystery shopping agencies to police its dealers and monitor the arrangement. However, the judgment criticized the Commission for not citing specific evidence to support these conclusions, relying solely on the DG's report, which is not permissible.

2. Contravention of Section 3(4)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Mandating use of recommended lubricants and oils):

The Commission found Hyundai Motor guilty of mandating its dealers to use recommended lubricants and oils and penalizing them for using non-recommended ones. The judgment pointed out contradictions in the Commission's findings, noting that while the Commission initially stated that cancellation of warranty upon use of non-recommended oils does not amount to contravention, it later concluded that Hyundai Motor contravened Section 3(4)(a) read with Section 3(1) by mandating the use of recommended lubricants. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence to suggest that Hyundai Motor penalized dealers for not using recommended lubricants.

3. Allegations of exclusive dealership arrangements and refusal to deal:

The 1st Informant alleged that Hyundai Motor entered into exclusive dealership arrangements, requiring dealers to obtain prior consent before taking up other brand dealerships. The 2nd Informant alleged that Clause 5(iii) of the Dealership Agreement prohibited dealers from investing in other businesses, amounting to "refusal to deal" under Section 3(4)(d). The Commission noted that Clause 5 did not strictly set out an exclusivity obligation but required prior written permission from Hyundai Motor. The judgment criticized the Commission for not discussing evidence or agreements to substantiate these allegations.

4. Allegations of price collusion and hub-and-spoke arrangements:

The 1st Informant alleged that Hyundai Motor was responsible for price collusion among competitors through hub-and-spoke arrangements. The judgment did not find substantial discussion or evidence in the Commission's findings to support this allegation.

5. Determination of relevant market:

The DG defined multiple relevant markets for different contraventions, but the Commission rejected these definitions, delineating two markets: the upstream product market (all passenger cars) and the downstream product market (dealership and distribution of Hyundai cars). The judgment criticized the Commission for failing to decide the relevant geographic and product markets as required under Section 19(6) and (7) of the Act. It highlighted the need to identify competitive constraints and actual competitors, which the Commission failed to do.

6. Violation of principles of natural justice:

The Appellant argued that the Commission failed to provide notice of disagreement with the DG's report regarding the relevant market. The judgment did not delve into this issue, focusing instead on the lack of evidence and proper inquiry.

7. Inquiry procedure under Section 19 and Section 26 of the Act:

The judgment emphasized that the Commission failed to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 19 and Section 26 of the Act. It noted that the DG's report is merely an opinion to assist the Commission, which must independently analyze evidence. The Commission's reliance solely on the DG's findings without discussing specific evidence was deemed impermissible.

Conclusion:

The judgment set aside the impugned order dated 14th June 2017, criticizing the Commission for not basing its findings on specific evidence and relying solely on the DG's report. It highlighted the failure to determine the relevant market and conduct a proper inquiry under Section 19 and Section 26 of the Act. The Appellant was entitled to a refund of any amount deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 18th July 2017, with no order as to costs.

---