Case Law Details
Balbir Singh Nagpal Vs Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited (Competition Commission of India)
In the case of Balbir Singh Nagpal vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) addressed allegations brought forward by the Informant, Balbir Singh Nagpal, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 against Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Uttam Toyota (OP-2). The Informant accused the OPs of anti-competitive practices related to the booking and delivery process of the Innova Hycross Hybrid ZX(O) car.
The Informant had booked the car on 25th November 2022 with OP-2, expecting delivery within two months. However, the delivery timeline was later extended to eight months, causing dissatisfaction. It was alleged that despite this extended wait period, other customers received their cars sooner, and there were allegations of arbitrary allocation and even demands for premiums by Direct Sales Agents (DSAs) for expedited deliveries.
The primary contention of the Informant was that such practices constituted abuse of dominant position by OP-1 in the market for strong hybrid passenger vehicles in India. The Informant argued that OP-1’s actions created artificial scarcity, imposed resale price maintenance (RPM), and coerced customers into purchasing additional accessories at inflated prices.
In response, OP-1 clarified that the extended waiting period was due to global semiconductor shortages, which affected the entire automobile industry, and denied any involvement in the specific allocation or delivery processes handled by OP-2. OP-2, on the other hand, denied employing DSAs and refuted allegations of preferential treatment or unfair practices in delivery scheduling.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
