The Competition Commission disposed of an information alleging that Urbanclap imposed unfair conditions on professionals and denied market access. The Commission found no prima facie case of abuse under Sections 3 and 4 as no mandatory purchase clause existed, ordering the information closed.
The information was ordered to be closed forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 30 of 2020
In Re:
Prachi Agarwal LB-7, Gauri Sadan, 5 Hailey Road, New Delhi – 110 001 Informant
And
Urbanclap Technologies India Private Limited 416, Udyog Vihar III, Sector 20, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 022 Opposite Party
CORAM:
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson
Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member
Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Case No. 30 of 2020
1
Commission, the Opposite Party is engaged in providing an online platform via web and mobile app whereby various beauty and housekeeping services such as electricians, plumbing, cleaning, pests, etc ., are provided to customers.
Case No. 30 of 2020
2
Case No. 30 of 2020
3
the Opposite Party and second by restricting the purchase of any other brands than the ones sold by OP. The Informant has alleged that this arrangement is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(4)(b) of the Act. Further, as per the Informant, Section 3(4)(b) of the Act cannot be read in isolation without visiting Section 3(4)(d) of the Act which defines refusal to deal as any agreement which restricts or is likely to restrict by any method the persons or classes of persons to whom goods are sold or from whom goods are bought. Therefore, any act attracting Section 3(4)(b) shall ipso facto attract 3(4)(d), however, vice versa may not be true. The Informant has further claimed that the abovementioned conduct of the Opposite Party has resulted in appreciable adverse effect on competition.
Case No. 30 of 2020
4
based on the expected consumption by the professionals. These products are also alleged to be selected brands as arbitrarily decided by the Opposite Party.
Case No. 30 of 2020
5
Party. Thus, Partners are free to choose whether to purchase such products from the Opposite Party or directly from the open market and indeed do routinely exercise such a choice.
Case No. 30 of 2020
6
Case No. 30 of 2020
7
Opposite Party has also provided a copy of the service agreement entered with beauty professionals in support of its contentions.
Case No. 30 of 2020
8
different service providers. These are quality of service, convenience, cost, brand image etc., with the relative importance of each of these factors depending on consumer preference as also on the specific categories of beauty services. Determination of substitutability and delineation of the area of effective competition for the Opposite Party ought to account for these nuances and complexities germane to salon services.
Case No. 30 of 2020
9
well as Section 4 of the Act and the Information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act.
Sd/- (Ashok Kumar Gupta) Chairperson
Sd/- (Sangeeta Verma) Member
Sd/- (Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi) Member
New Delhi Date: 24 / 03 /2021
Case No. 30 of 2020
10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent's conduct of requiring professionals to purchase products from it or limiting brand choices amounts to abuse of dominance or anti-competitive agreements under the Competition Ac
Whether the Informant has made out a prima facie case regarding relevant market definition to establish dominance and contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
Whether the respondent's reasoning regarding quality assurance justifies its product procurement policies without constituting an unfair condition or denial of market access.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Prachi Agarwal
Urbanclap Technologies India Private Limited
Ashok Kumar Gupta
Sangeeta Verma
Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
