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

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...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more