TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Property Centre (India) Private Limited (Covai) ("Opposite Party No.1"/ "OP-1"/ "Covai Centre"), Covai Senior Citizen Services Pvt. Ltd. ("Opposite Party No.2"/ "OP-2"/ "Covai Services") and Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited ("Opposite Party No.3"/ "OP-3"/ "Ozone Urbana Developers") (collectively as "Opposite Parties"). 2. The Informant is a resident of "Urbana Irene", Ozone Urbana Township, Kannamangala, Bengaluru Rural. OP-1 is private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is based in Coimbatore. It provides consultancy services and care in terms of designing, building and operating retirement communities. OP-2 is a subsidiary/assignee of OP-1 and is the authorized service provider for Project "U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing staff and increase in Monthly Maintenance Charges ("MMC") are the result of abuse of dominant position. It has been alleged that since OP-2 is the only service provider, it simply makes a statement of increase in costs - without validation - and then uses it as a reason for increasing MMC and decreasing number of housekeeping staff. Thus, the Informant is left with no choice in the matter. 6. As per the Informant, because of the alleged tie-in arrangement between OP-1 and OP-3, the Informant is forced into signing a separate service agreement with OP-1 (stated to be the confirming party in the sale agreement) and its nominee, OP-2. The service agreement, signed between the Informant and OP-2 has made the Informant pay for the ameniti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittee or the Association as the case may be, ought to be the final authority to decide on the contract terms, including amending, adding, removing the terms and conditions as well as the power to annul a contract and issue a fresh contract to the present service provider or appoint a new one. 10. In view of the above, the Informant has alleged contravention of Section 4 and Section 3(4) of the Act and has sought the following reliefs: i. The reference to Covai Centre as a confirming party, which is in violation of the Act (tie-in arrangement) be removed from the expected Sale Deed whenever it is finalised. ii. The first floor of the A and B blocks are common amenities areas and shall be the property of the Association ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or sale as well as the service agreement entered into by him on 10.07.2018. The Informant also appears to be aggrieved by the unilateral changes in allotment of housekeeping staff and increase in MMC, which are alleged to be the result of anti-competitive conduct of Opposite Parties. 15. For an analysis of the case under Section 4 of the Act, the first requirement is to determine whether the Opposite Parties fall in the category of 'enterprise'. In the present matter, since Opposite Parties are undertaking commercial activities, they squarely fall under the ambit of 'enterprise' in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act. Thereafter, an appropriate relevant market, as per Section 2(r) of the Act which comprises of relevant product market and re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In view of the above, the Commission observes that apartments catering to the needs of the retired/senior people can be considered as a separate relevant product under Section 2(t) of the Act. Accordingly, for the purpose of the present matter, the relevant product market may be defined as 'the market for provision of services for development and sale of apartment to cater to the needs of senior citizens.' 17. With regard to the relevant geographic market, the Commission has taken into consideration the location of the project, which is in Kannamangala, Taluka-Devanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka. This location falls within the Bangalore Metropolitan Region. It may be noted that the conditions of competition within the Bangalore Metropolita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ination of the alleged abusive conduct of OP-3. 20. The Informant has also alleged that by making Covai Service a service provider for the allottees of Urbana Irene, a tie-in-arrangement has been forced on the Informant, in terms of Section 3(4) of the Act. The Commission notes that for applicability of Section 3(4) of the Act, the entities in question must operate at different stages or level of the production chain in different markets in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, sale or price of, or trade in goods or provisions of services. The Commission also notes that the agreement alleged to be in contravention of Section 3(4) of the Act is between Urbana Developers and the Informant and that the Informant is the owner....