Housing society changes staff allocation and maintenance charges without establishing market dominance under Section 4

The CCI examined allegations of abuse of dominant position under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, regarding unilateral changes in housekeeping staff allotment and increased maintenance charges. The CCI determined that the opposite parties qualified as enterprises under Section 2(h) as they undertook commercial activities. The relevant geographic market was defined as Bangalore Metropolitan Region, and the relevant product market as provision of services for development and sale of apartments catering to senior citizens in that region. After analyzing the market delineation and dominance factors under Section 19(4), the CCI found no prima facie case of contravention and closed the information under Section 26(2), rejecting relief claims under Section 33.

---

---

Issues:
Alleged contravention of provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by multiple parties in a residential complex.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations and Parties Involved:
The Information filed alleged contravention of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act by Covai Property Centre, Covai Senior Citizen Services Pvt. Ltd., and Ozone Urbana Infra Developers. The Informant, a resident of Urbana Irene, purchased an apartment and was allegedly forced into accepting services from Covai Services due to tie-in arrangements between the parties.

2. Tie-in Arrangement and Service Agreements:
The Informant claimed that tie-in arrangements between the parties led to a lack of choice in selecting service providers. The agreement mandated the Informant to enter into a service agreement with Covai Services, leading to unilateral changes in services and maintenance charges, allegedly due to misuse of dominant position by Covai.

3. Abuse of Dominant Position and Anti-Competitive Conduct:
The Informant alleged that Covai misused its dominant position by increasing service charges arbitrarily, affecting residents' affordability. The Informant sought reliefs including removal of confirming party status, ownership rights of common areas, and mutual decision-making on service terms and rates.

4. Market Analysis and Geographic Relevance:
The Commission analyzed the relevant market for services catering to senior citizens in Bangalore Metropolitan Region, considering factors like amenities, location, and competitive constraints posed by other developers. The Commission concluded that OP-3 did not hold a dominant position in the market.

5. Applicability of Competition Act Sections:
The Commission determined that the tie-in arrangement did not fall under Section 3(4) of the Act as it involved an agreement between the enterprise and an end consumer. Citing a previous case, the Commission found no prima facie case for contravention and closed the Information under Section 26(2) of the Act.

6. Decision and Communication:
The Commission decided to close the case, finding no grounds for the alleged contraventions. The Secretary was directed to communicate the decision to the Informant, concluding the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.

---