The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has rejected allegations that Nissan Motor India and one of its authorized dealers abused their dominant position in terms of after-sales service.
In Smt Jolly Diclause v General Manager, Sterling Vehicle Sales Pvt Ltd and Nissan Motor India Pvt Ltd, the informant had purchased a Nissan Micra car from the showroom of Sterling Vehicle Sales. The dealer’s service centre subsequently serviced and maintained the car but defects emerged after the servicing. The informant alleged that the car had manufacturing defects or was damaged by service centre’s carelessness and negligent handling.
[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]
The informant asked the CCI to issue a cease and desist order restraining Nissan and its dealer from indulging in “unfair and erroneous” trade practices and directing them to exchange the defective car for a new one. The informant also sought compensation to the tune of ₹200,000 (US$3,000) towards the mental harassment and inconvenience caused.
After hearing the parties, the CCI observed that the informant had not indicated any market where either of the opposite parties was dominant. She was aggrieved that the opposite parties had not satisfactorily addressed or attended to her grievances and that further damage was caused to the car due to alleged negligent handling. However, to contravene section 4 of the Competition Act, an enterprise has to be shown to have abused a dominant position in the relevant market.
The CCI found that none of the abusive instances as alleged in the information came within the purview of section 4(2) of the act. Thus, it was not necessary to delineate the relevant market and to assess the dominance of either of the opposite parties. The CCI therefore directed that the information be closed under section 26(2) of the act.
[/ihc-hide-content]
