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

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...