Hexa Communications Private Limited Vs Atos India Private Limited (Competition Commission of India)
The Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, observes that there shall not be any requirement of defining a precise relevant market for the assessment of dominance of the Opposite Party. The products of the Opposite Party, namely, enterprise communications platforms consisting of core telephony switch, which includes hardware, software, and peripherals and end devices like digital and internet protocol telephone, are offered for sale by many players like Google, Cisco, Avaya, Microsoft, IBM, Polycom, Alcatel Lucent, Airtel, Reliance, Tata Tele Business, BSNL, etc., in India, and there appears to be sufficient competition in the market qua such products and services. Further, the Opposite Party has stated that it holds a minuscule market share qua such products and services and does not have any market power. This is coupled with the assertion by the Opposite Party that its products have inter-brand compatibility with various degrees of substitutability and there are no restrictions in respect of availability of spares/services of its products. The Commission notes that the Informant has not stated whether it was denied spares by the distributor of the Opposite Party. On the contrary, it appears from the submissions of the Opposite Party that the Informant was more interested in dealing in refurbished products of the Opposite Party, for which the Opposite Party has stated that it is under no obligation to provide any warranty qua such refurbished products to end consumers. The Commission does not prima facie find any difficulty with such proposition.
The Commission is further of the view that there is no inherent right with the Informant to become an authorised channel partner of the Opposite Party, especially when the Opposite Party has expressed its apprehensions qua the bonafide business dealings of the Informant. The Commission is not in any manner endorsing such apprehension which is a subject matter of parties inter se. The Commission is of the view that, in the presence of other major players offering similar products and services with which the Informant can possibly enter into business relationship(s), the non-dealing with the Opposite Party which claims to have a very small market share does not tend to indicate any foreclosure effects, much less absolute restraints.
Thus, in view of the analysis supra, the Commission is of the prima facie view that the allegations under Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Act remain unsubstantiated in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. The Commission is also of the view that no case of violation of any of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out in any manner against the Opposite Party.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
