2024 (1) TMI 1385 - CCI - Law of Competition

Contravention of provisions of Section 4 of Competition Act 2002 - abuse of dominant position - charging excessive fares - HELD THAT - The Commission has perused the Information and other material available on record. It appears that the Informant is primarily aggrieved by the exclusivity granted to KSRTC by the Government of Kerala by way of notification for operating buses on the Nilakkal- Pamba route to reach Sabarimala temple as well as charging of exorbitant fares from passengers on the said route. This has been alleged to be in contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act. With regard to grant of exclusivity to KSRTC for operating on certain routes the Commission notes from the submission of KSRTC that the same has been done by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for providing adequate economical and properly coordinated passenger road transport service in the public interest - Commission also notes that the said notification is applicable to both nationalized and non-nationalized routes and has provisions for enhancement of rate of fares for (a) Ghat roads and; (b) during the festival occasions as mentioned in the schedule appended to the said notification. The Commission further notes that the fares on per kilometer basis are being charged on a uniform basis as per the said notification by both public and private operators. The Commission is of the opinion that since there appears no discernible competition concern in the matter it may not be appropriate to delve into allegations of abuse of dominant position. Prima-facie no case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act is made out in the facts circumstances and allegations levelled in the case and the matter is ordered to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently no case for grant of relief as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises in the matter.

Summary

Issues: Alleged contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) regarding exclusivity on a specific route and charging excessive fares.

Analysis:
1. The Informant, a practicing lawyer, filed a complaint under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging that KSRTC, an autonomous corporation in Kerala, violated Section 4 of the Act by enjoying exclusivity on the Nilakkal-Pamba route and charging high fares during the pilgrimage season to Sabarimala temple.

2. KSRTC operates under a scheme approved by the Government of Kerala, granting exclusivity to provide passenger road transport services on specific routes, including the Nilakkal-Pamba route. The Informant claimed that KSRTC's dominance and excessive fares on this route constitute a violation of the Act.

3. During the peak pilgrimage season, KSRTC provides additional bus services to accommodate the influx of pilgrims visiting Sabarimala temple. The Informant alleged that KSRTC charges fares higher than standard rates for this route, which is shorter than the distance charged.

4. KSRTC defended its operations, stating that the special/additional services during the Sabarimala festival are in compliance with nationalization schemes and government notifications regulating fares. The government's notifications authorize fare revisions for special occasions and ghat roads, ensuring uniformity in fare charges for both nationalized and non-nationalized routes.

5. The Informant countered KSRTC's response, claiming that the pilgrimage to Sabarimala is a seasonal yatra, not a festival, and likened it to other pilgrimage routes like Amarnath Yatra. The Informant alleged that KSRTC's pricing strategy during this period constitutes an abuse of dominant position.

6. The Competition Commission of India reviewed the submissions and found that the grant of exclusivity to KSRTC by the government and the fare charges were in line with legal provisions and government notifications. The Commission determined that there was no apparent competition concern or abuse of dominant position in this case.

7. Consequently, the Commission concluded that there was no contravention of Section 4 of the Act in the circumstances presented. The case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and no relief under Section 33 was warranted. The Secretary was directed to communicate this decision to the parties involved.