Case Law Details
In re Deepak Kumar Vs Air India Limited (Competition Commission of India)
Introduction: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) recently dismissed a case filed by Shri Deepak Kumar against Air India Limited. The case, filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, alleged violations by Air India. However, the CCI’s decision was based on the absence of evidence supporting claims of cartelization or bid-rigging.
Detailed Analysis:
i. Background: Shri Deepak Kumar, a former pilot with Air India, raised concerns about the impact of Air India’s merger with Tata SIA Airlines Limited on his career. The merger, approved by the CCI, triggered allegations of malicious destruction of service records by Air India.
ii. Allegations and Contraventions: Deepak Kumar’s allegations included:
-
- Cartelization under Section 3(3) involving Tata Group and Air India.
- Bid-rigging during the acquisition of Air India Limited under Section 3(3)(d).
- Refusal to deal under Section 3(4)(d), affecting the Informant’s position.
- Abuse of dominant position under Section 4, involving various restrictive practices.
iii. CCI’s Decision: The CCI, after examining the evidence presented, found no proof of cartelization or bid-rigging. Instead, it identified the matter as an internal dispute between Deepak Kumar and Air India regarding service-related issues. Consequently, the CCI concluded that no competition issues were established and dismissed the case under Section 26(2) of the Act.
Conclusion: In summary, the CCI’s dismissal of the case against Air India highlights the importance of substantial evidence in competition law matters. Despite the Informant’s claims, the CCI found no support for allegations of cartelization or bid-rigging. This decision emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of evidence in cases involving competition concerns.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
1. The present Information has been filed by Shri Deepak Kumar (‘Informant’), under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’), against Air India Limited (‘OP”), alleging contravention of the provisions of the Act.
2. From the facts stated in the Information, it is noted that the Informant is an individual who is a former pilot with Air India Limited. The OP is an airlines company operating domestic and international flights in India. In 2022, OP was acquired by Tata group. Subsequently, the Commission vide its order dated 01.09.2023 approved the merger of Tata SIA Airlines Limited into the OP, and the acquisition of certain shareholding by Singapore Airlines Limited in the OP, subject to compliance of voluntary commitments offered by the parties.
3. The Informant seems to be aggrieved by such merger of Tata SIA Airlines Limited and Air India Limited. As per the Informant, the same has led to an adverse impact on his career and service record. The Informant has alleged that under the garb of the said transaction, the Informant’s service records have been maliciously destroyed by the OP. The Informant has also made allegations of criminal nature against certain individuals, alleging their complicity in such actions of the OP.
4. The Informant has inter alia alleged contravention of the following provisions of the Act by the OP:
(a) Section 3(3) – Tata Group and the OP have formed a cartel as Singapore Airlines is trying to acquire share in the OP by concealing all material facts related to the service of the Informant.
(b) Section 3(3)(d) – There exists bid-rigging in the process adopted for acquisition of Air India Limited.
(c) Section 3(4)(d) – Principal Employer of the Informant e., the OP, is refusing to deal with the Informant.
(d) Section 4 – The OP is abusing its dominant position by (i) directly and indirectly imposing prohibitory orders upon the Informant; (ii) limiting and restricting the scientific and technical development of the Informant’s career as a pilot; (iii) adopted predatory practices against the Informant; and (iv) denying him market access by withholding his service records/ not approving his flying records/ destroying his service records/ fabricating the public registers/ creating false documents, to screen the accused persons and defaming the Informant by making grave remarks about him in his removal from service records, which is not only to the prejudice of the Informant but also to the end consumers and passengers who are general public not knowing such dishonest intentions.
5. Based on the above, the Informant has filed the present Information seeking relief that merger of Air India Limited with any other airline or business group be not approved by the Commission.
6. From the documents annexed with the Information, the Commission notes that there is no evidence placed on record by the Informant which may suggest any case of cartelisation or bid-rigging. Rather, there seems to exist an inter-se dispute relating to the service of the Informant between the Informant and the OP.
7. In view of the Commission, no competition issue or concern arises from the facts and allegations stated by the Informant. As such, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case of contravention of any provisions of the Act can be made out against the OP in the present matter. Hence, the matter is directed to be closed in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act.
8. The Secretary is directed to communicate the same to the Informant, accordingly.
