Competition Commission of India: A four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahata, Members, held that opposite parties, ‘Ola’ (OP 1) and ‘Uber’ (OP 2) did not contravene either Section 3 or 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
The informant- ‘Meru’ cab, informed the Commission that the OPs were collectively the dominant players in the radio taxi services market. They entered into agreements with each other that were detrimental to the competition. The informant raised various points. Firstly, it was alleged that the OPs abused their dominant position by entering into agreements with each other that had an appreciable adverse effect on competition on the market. Secondly, the question was also raised as to the common investors (mainly ‘SoftBank’) which, as alleged, resulted in common control. Thirdly, it was alleged that the OPs had indulged in below variable cost pricing for a period of over two years. Considering the information received, the Commission, on 3-8-2017, sought further information from the OPs primarily in regard to their shareholding pattern.
The Commission observed that the informant did not place on record any agreement entered into between the OPs and the drivers imposing exclusivity restrictions on drivers in contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1). Regarding dominance, the Commission was of the opinion that high market share was not in itself an indicator of dominant position. As for the allegation of collective dominance, the Commission observed that Section 4 does not contemplate in its fold the concept of collective dominance. The Commission held that the dominance of either Ola or Uber was not made out. The Commission showed some concern over the fact of common ownership (common investors like SoftBank) and held that policy needs to be framed in that regard, as such overlapping interest may result in the reduction of firms’ incentive to compete. However, on this point too, the Commission held that as per the law as it stood on the day, the OPs could not have been said to contravene the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. Holding that investigation under the Act could not be held solely based on conjectures and apprehensions, the Commission closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act. [Meru Travel Solutions (P) Ltd. v. ANI Technologies (P) Ltd., Case No. 25 of 2017, dated 20-6-2018]