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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more