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