Partly allowed

Mr. Vimal Singh Rajput v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

CCI17 Mar 201686/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Competition Commission of India allowed an application under Section 38 to rectify clerical errors in an earlier order regarding market share figures and a factual implication about Vehicle Tracking Systems, but dismissed requests to amend substantive observations.

What did the court decide?

Rectification of '13.08 cars' to '13.08 lakh cars' in paragraph 11 and omission of 'usually' in paragraph 2 of the impugned order allowed.

Mr. Vimal Singh Rajput vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | CCI (2016)

¶1

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

¶2

17.03.2016

¶3

Case No. 86/2015

¶4

Filed By: Shri Vimal Singh Rajput

¶5

Against: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

¶6

Order under Section 38 of the Competition Act, 2002

¶7

The Commission had closed the instant case vide its order dated 7^th January, 2016 passed under Section 26 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘ Act ’). Subsequently, the Informant has moved an application on 29^th February, 2016 under Section 38 of the Act seeking certain amendments to the said order of the Commission.

¶8

Today, the Commission considered the aforesaid application of the Informant and noted that the Informant has sought amendments in respect of certain facts as well as observations/analysis recorded in the impugned order.

¶9

The Commission notes that paragraph 11 of the impugned order, inter alia, states that ‘…. OP has a market share of about 40% with a production of 13.08 cars in 2014-15…’, whereas, the actual number of cars manufactured by OP in 2014-15 was 13.08 lakh. Similarly, in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, it has been stated that ‘ As per the information ....... it usually has a VTS (Vehicle Tracking System) device which enables the car manufacturer, including OP, to track the location and movement of CCT…’ The Informant has submitted that the information does not state that CCT ‘ usually ’ has a VTS device; on the contrary, all the CCTs have a VTS device installed upon them. The Commission notes that these are clerical mistakes apparent on the face of record and are required to be rectified. Thus, the following rectifications are allowed under Section 38 of the Act:

¶10

(a) The numbers and words ‘ 13.08 cars ’ mentioned in para 11 of the impugned order shall be read as ‘ 13.08 lakh cars ’;

¶11

(b) The word ‘usually’ mentioned in para 2 shall be omitted.

¶12

The Commission however, does not find any merit in the other requests of the Informant (in para 4.3 to 4.7 of the application) since they relate to observations/analysis of the Commission which cannot be the subject matter of rectification.

¶13

The Secretary is directed to inform the Informant accordingly.

¶14

Sd/Sd/(Sudhir Mital) (Augustine Peter) Member Member Sd/Sd/(U. C. Nahta) (Justice G. P. Mittal) Member Member

Mr. Vimal Singh Rajput v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vimal Singh Rajput v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases