Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 MAY 2016

Car Manufacturers' Order: Contradicting Itself?

Simultaneous application of Section 3 and 4 of Competition Act, 2002 may not be as straight-forward as it appears.

IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Danish Khan
Danish Khan
Anand Sree
Anand Sree

Simultaneous application of Section 3 and 4 of Competition Act, 2002 may not be as straight-forward as it appears.

Giving a ray of hope to car owners and independent car repair shops in the country, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) recently penalised 14 car manufacturers for entering into anti-competitive agreements and abusing their dominant position in their respective car aftermarkets.1

The CCI has rightfully garnered plaudits for taking on the practices carried on by the automobile manufacturers (who may understandably be full of scorn).

Essentially, the CCI found that car manufacturers enjoy a dominant position in the markets for spare parts and after-sales service of their respective brand of cars [Para. 20.5.70]. Consequently, among others, the restriction on original equipment suppliers against sale of spare parts and diagnostic tools and manuals to independent service providers constituted abuse of dominant position [Paras.20.5.83 and 20.5.84].

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from