N Sanjeev Rao and Mrs. Fatima Tahir v. Andhra Pradesh Hire Purchase Association and 162 Others.

CCI7 Feb 201349/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Informants alleged cartelization and abuse of dominance by auto finance providers in Hyderabad. The Commission rejected the distinct market argument, found no evidence of agreement on interest rates, noted absence of collective dominance provisions, and held that grievances lay under other laws, ordering closure of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Order closing the proceedings under Section 26(2) of the Act as no prima facie contravention was made out.

N Sanjeev Rao and Mrs. Fatima Tahir vs Andhra Pradesh Hire Purchase Association and 162 Others. — CCI (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

¶3

Case No. 49/2012

¶4

Dated: 7^th February , 2013

¶5

N. Sanjeev Rao and Mrs. Fatima Tahir Informants Through: Shri Rakesh Sanghi and Tushar Ahmed, Advocates

¶6

Andhra Pradesh Hire Purchase Association & 162 others Opposite Parties

¶7

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

¶8

The present information was filed under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) by the Informants against Andhra Pradesh Hire Purchase Association and 162 others (OP1 and OPs 2 to 163 or collectively the „Opposite Parties‟) alleging cartelization and abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Parties in contravention of the provisions of sections 3and 4 of the Act.

¶9

The informants, two individuals, had taken auto finance services from the opposite parties 3, 4 and 5.OP-2 to the OP-163were Individuals carrying on auto finance business in the name and style of their respective Sole Proprietorship concerns or corporate names etc. OP-1, a registered Associationunder Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, wasformed by OP-2 to OP163 in the name and style of Andhra Pradesh Hire Purchase Association. The customers of the Opposite Parties were usually the persons whocould not obtain a loan from a Banking Company in India.

¶10

The informants alleged that the OP-2to the OP-163were controlling at least 60% of the entire auto finance market in the cities of Hyderabad & Secunderabad. The opposite parties were acting in violation of the provisions of the A.P (Telengana Area) Money Lender‟s Act, 1349 Fasli which mandated that an individual or partnership firm conducting money lending business had to mandatorily obtain Money Lender‟s License under the said Act.Further, the opposite parties were also acting in violation of the provisions contained in the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 which regulated the charging of interest by the opposite parties.

¶11

¶12

It was submitted in the information that the opposite parties had created a flimsy smoke screen by falsely describing their auto finance business as a Hire Purchase transaction.Though the opposite party nos. 31, 37, 39, 45, 47, 48, 60 and 90 being corporate entities incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 did not require a Money lender‟s License to conduct money lending business, but the interest being charged by them was bound to be regulated as per the provisions contained in the Usurious Loans Act, 1918.

¶13

It was alleged that in case of seizure of the vehicle of the defaulter,opposite parties unilaterally calculated the outstanding amount due and the financier‟s goons proceeded to seize the vehicle from the loanee without a Court order and without rendering a statement of account of the Loanee to the Loanee.

¶14

Further, the opposite parties successfully sold the hypothecated vehicles even without a Court Decree by adopting a uniform business practice of obtaining various blank signed documents including signed blank cheques, transfer forms alongwith a plethora of documents from the Loaneeat the time of execution of the documents and disbursing the loan amount.These documents were subsequently misused by the opposite parties to sell the vehicle in the market.

¶15

It was alleged that as per the Articles and Memorandum of Association of the OP1.Association all the members declared that they were conducting Hire Purchase Business which was a false declaration.

¶16

The Opposite Party No.1 – Association is stated to have filed a Model Hire Purchase Agreement in the Writ Petitions in AP High Court filed by the Opposite Parties to show that the transaction with the intended loaneewas a Hire Purchase transaction instead of a money lending transaction.

¶17

The informant 1 was the loanee ofthe OP-3 &the OP-4(father and son) and had filed a Consumer Complaint in Hyderabad along with a separate Criminal Complaint for prosecution of the OP-3 and the OP-4 (father and son) as he was compelled to payout Rs.1,00,000/- for recovering his motorcar from the OP-3. Similarly, the informant 2 was a loanee of the OP-5who had also filed a Consumer Complaint apart from a separate Criminal Complaint for prosecution

¶18

¶19

of the OP-5 (Sole Proprietor) for carrying on illegal finance business in violation of the A.P (T.A) Money Lender‟s Act, 1349 Fasli.

¶20

As per the Informantsthe relevant market in the present matter wasthe „private auto financiers market‟ in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

¶21

It was alleged by the Informants that the members of the OP-1 had entered into an agreement or, understanding to carry on the illegalities in the course of auto finance business under the garb of „Hire purchase transaction‟ which directly determined the „price‟ of services being rendered by „private financiers‟ in the automobile finance market.It was also alleged that the OP-2 to OP-163had formed a Cartel and constituted a single entity i.e. OP-1, Associations for abusing their dominant position by exploiting the consumers in the „private auto finance market‟.

¶22

The Informants prayed to the Commission for the following reliefs:

¶23

a) To pass an Order to restrain the OP-2 to OP-163 (except 31, 37, 39, 45, 47, 48, 60, 90) from carrying on auto finance business and direct OP-31, 37, 39, 45, 47, 48, 60, 90 to carry on their business in compliance with the provisions contained in the A.P (T.A) Money Lenders Act, 1349;

¶24

b) To pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to charge reasonable interest as per the provisions contained in the Usurious Loan Act, 1918;

¶25

c) To pass an order restraining the Opposite Party from seizing or, snatching the Hypothecated vehicle from the consumers except through the procedure established by the law; and

¶26

d) Any other order which the Commission may deem fit.

¶27

The Commission perused the information and written submissions filed by the informants besides hearing their advocates.

¶28

The Commission, after considering all material on record and arguments of advocates of the informants, finds that the contention of informants to treat „Auto-finance by non-banking entities‟ as a separate service market has no justification. There is no basis to differentiate between „private auto financers‟ and other banking / non-banking entities which are in the

¶29

¶30

business of extending automobile finance.The relevant product market in the present matter has to be the “services of automobile finance”. The geographic market may remain the same as the “twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in the state of Andhra Pradesh”. As such relevant market in this case would be “services of automobile finance in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in the state of Andhra Pradesh”.

¶31

15 Bare perusal of facts of this case would show that the informants have not brought on record anything to show that there was an agreement among opposite parties to charge exorbitant rates of interest for providing automobile finance services. The grievance of applicants is that opposites parties were contravening the provisions of the AP (Telengana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli and the Usurious Loans Act, 1918. This does not raise any competition concern and remedy for the same lies elsewhere. Filing of writ petition by opposite party 1 before Andhra Pradesh High Court also cannot be considered as an agreement among members of Association(OP 1) for a cartel like conduct by any stretch of imagination. The Informants relied uponPrakashKaur case, (2007) 2 SCC 711 and Civil Appeal no. 9711 of 2011 (CitiCorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs S. Vijay Laxmi) among other cases, but they are not relevant in the facts of this case.

¶32

On the basis of the information, it cannot be said that the members of the OP1 association i.e. OP-2 to OP-163had engaged in an agreement in violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act.As regards abuse of dominance i.e. contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act, the Commission finds that there was no concept of collective dominance in the Act, which is the case of informant. It is not even alleged that any of the OPs was individually dominant in the relevant market.Even if the allegation that OP-2 to the OP-163 were controlling at least 60% of the entire auto finance market in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad is considered to be correct, the same would not serve any purpose in view of absence of the concept of joint dominance in section 4 of the Act.

¶33

As regards the similarity of the present matter with case nos. 14 of 2011 and 60 of 2011 related to Shriram Transport Company is concerned, it is noted that the said cases were against the alleged abuse of dominant position by Shriram Transport Company whereas in the present matter the allegation is that of formation of acartel by the members of the OP1 Association i.e.

¶34

¶35

OP-2 to OP-163 besides abuse of joint dominance by Association and its members against consumers.

¶36

In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that prima facie no contravention of provisions of sections 3 and 4 is made out in this matter and facts of the case do not raise any competition concern.

¶37

The Commission accordingly holds that prima facie , it is a fit case for closure of the proceedings under section 26(2) of the Act.

¶38

The Secretary is directed to communicate the decision of the Commission to the Informant accordingly.

¶39

Sd/Sd/- Sd/H.C. Gupta R. Prasad GeetaGouri (Member) (Member) (Member) Sd/Sd/Sd/AnuragGoel M.L. Tayal Justice(Retd.) S.N. Dhingra (Member) (Member) (Member)

¶40

Sd/Ashok Chawla (Chairperson)

¶41

¶42

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

¶43

CASE NO.49/2012

¶44

MEMO. OF PARTIES

¶45