Thursday 16 June 2016

India: Unfair Trade Practice Case - Shri Kamble Kallappa Vs Bennett Coleman and company Limited

The Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCI’), decided a recent matter of unfair trade practice and abuse of dominant position in favor of Bennett Coleman and Company Limited. The complaint was made by Shri Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa, that in Mumbai, the newspaper vendors are selling ‘The Times of India’ only with ‘Mumbai Mirror’ and refusing to sell ‘The Times of India’ along with ‘The Economic Times’ or ‘Maharashtra Times’ in a combo offer, forcing people to pay separately for ‘The Economic Times’ or ‘Maharashtra Times’. The commission held that all the newspapers which are available in the combo offer including ‘The Times of India’, ‘Mumbai Mirror’, ‘The ‘Economic Times’ and ‘Maharashtra Times’, are also available separately at their respective selling price. Hence, the consumers have the choice to either purchase the newspapers in the combo offer or to purchase each newspaper separately.

Brief Background

In the present matter, the charge of anti-competitive practice is made against Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, which is India’s largest media conglomerate and also the publisher of ‘The Times of India’ – a leading English language newspaper in India having editions all over the country including Mumbai. Bennett Coleman also publishes ‘Mumbai Mirror’ – a daily tabloid in English, ‘The Economic Times’ - an economic and business daily, ‘Maharashtra Times’ - a daily newspaper in Marathi language, and ‘Navbharat Times’ - a daily newspaper in Hindi language along with a host of other periodicals.

The Informant stated that Bennett Coleman made available the Mumbai edition of ‘The Times of India’ in a combo offer with ‘Mumbai Mirror’ or ‘The Economic Times’ or ‘Maharashtra Times’ at a selling price of Rs. 7/-. The Informant alleged that in the combo offer, the newspaper vendors in Mumbai are selling ‘The Times of India’ only with ‘Mumbai Mirror’ and refusing to sell ‘The Times of India’ along with ‘The Economic Times’ or ‘Maharashtra Times’.

Contentions by Shri Kamble Sayabanna Kallappa (Informant)

The informant submitted that the complaint was made against the practice of newspaper vendors to the “The Times of India’, with the video recording (CD) containing the behavior of the vendors, but the same was not responded to, by anyone from ‘The Times of India’ The informant further addressed the issue to the Editor of the ‘The Times of India’ which was again not addressed.

It was submitted that through this conduct Bennett Coleman wants to increase the circulation of ‘Mumbai Mirror’ in the Mumbai market and supports newspaper vendors who refuse to sell the said newspaper as per the said offer and compel the buyers to buy unwanted newspaper. This is an unfair trade practice and abuse of dominant position in terms of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

Observation of Competition Commission
  • All the newspapers are available in the combo offer including ‘The Times of India’, ‘Mumbai Mirror’, ‘The ‘Economic Times’ and ‘Maharashtra Times’, are also available separately at their respective selling prices in Mumbai. Hence, the consumers have the choice to either purchase the newspapers in the combo offer or to purchase each newspaper separately.
  • The video recording submitted by the Informant shows that some vendors are stating that the combo offer is available only for annual subscribers.
  • Bennett Coleman does not appear to have imposed any restriction or unfair condition on the consumers through the said offer as it is not compelling the consumers to buy the newspapers only in the combo offer.
  • If some vendors are not providing ‘The Economic Times’ or ‘Maharashtra Times’ along with ‘The Times of India’ in the combo offer, then it cannot be said that the Bennett Coleman is responsible for the said conduct of such vendors.

Held


In the view of above, the Commission held that no case is made out against Bennett Coleman for contravention of any of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and the information was ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26 (2) of the Act.

No comments:

Post a Comment