Skip to main content

CCI slaps Rs 14.24 lakh penalty on road transporters grouping

The Competition Commission today slapped a fine of Rs 14.24 lakh on All India Motor Transport Congress (AIMTC) and asked the grouping to "cease and desist" from indulging in anti-competitive practices with respect to truck freight rates.

The ruling comes after a detailed probe by the fair trade regulator found that AIMTC, an apex body of road transporters, had uniformly hiked the truck freight rates across the country on account of diesel price hike in 2012.

The association has been penalised for indulging in unfair business practices and also not being able to "explain as to how the said conduct did not foreclose competition".

"...AIMTC through its impugned action has tried to determine the price of freight rates and, as such, such action squarely fell within the presumption raised in...The (Competition) Act," the Competition Commission of India said in an order dated February 16 but released today.

According to the regulator, the members of AIMTC had entered into an anti-competitive agreement to fix prices in respect of freight rates charged by individual truckers.

"Such collusive and concerted practices distorted the market dynamics and led the truckers to increase the prices through the decisions of associations instead of pricing the services through the market forces of demand and supply," CCI noted in the order.

Accordingly, the regulator has imposed a penalty of Rs 14.24 lakh on AIMTC.

It has also directed the body "to cease and desist from indulging in the act/conduct which have been found to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act in this order and in particular it is directed to refrain from issuing any announcements/ directions/ circulars etc to its members which may contravene the provisions of the Act".

The case relates to a complaint filed by Indian Foundation of Transport Research and Training that had alleged that AIMTC has uniformly increased the truck freight by 15 per cent across the country on account of diesel price hike of Rs 5 per litre from September 14, 2012.

Further, it was alleged that AIMTC has a track record of instructing its constituents to jack up freight charges on account of increase in input costs such as diesel price.

A cease and desist order was passed by the erstwhile MRTP Commission on August 31, 2006 whereby AIMTC was directed to restrain from such restrictive practices.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/cci-slaps-rs-14-24-lakh-penalty-on-road-transporters-grouping-115021700733_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more