P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Consumer Educational and Research Society and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. - (Competition Commission of India) (28 Jun 2019)

When statutory rules to deal with grievance of IPs exists, no anti-competitive conduct can be said to have arisen warranting an investigation into matter

MANU/CO/0024/2019

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The present information has been filed, by Consumer Educational and Research Society ('IP-1') and Parul Choudhary ('IP-2'), under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, against Union of India, Ministry of Railways ('OP-1') and Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. ('OP-2') alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

The IPs have, prayed that an inquiry into the matter be conducted by the DG and subsequently relief may be granted under Section 27 of the Act. Further, the Informants have prayed that the OPs be directed (i) to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000, being the total forfeited fare, to IP-2 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from various dates of payment, (ii) to alter its refund rules by discarding the said unfair condition, (iii) to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000 as cost to IP-2 and (iv) pass any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper.

The Commission notes that, due to the statutory and regulatory framework, dominance of Indian Railways in the market of transportation of passengers through railways across India is not disputed. The Commission notes that OP-2 vide its letter addressed to OP-1 (with a copy to IPs) had informed that "No Refund of fare shall be admissible on the tickets having confirmed reservation in case the ticket is not cancelled or TDR not filed online upto four hours before the scheduled departure of the train".

The Commission further notes that, the Railway Passengers (Cancellation of Tickets and Refund of Fare) Rules-2015, has been notified in the Gazette by the Central Government. As per provisions of Rule No. 8(7) of the said rule, "No Refund of fare shall be admissible on the tickets having confirmed reservation in case the ticket is not cancelled or TDR not filed online upto four hours before the scheduled departure of the train". In the face of existence of statutory rules to deal with the grievance of IPs, no anti-competitive conduct can be said to have arisen in the present case, warranting an investigation into the matter. If there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs', it is for the IPs to initiate proceedings before an appropriate forum.

The Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, and the information filed is closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. At the same time, the Commission feels that, Indian Railways may consider review of the existing rules of refund of fare and make the same more consumer friendly so that the passengers are not inconvenienced due to deficiency in services on its part, including delays on account of running the trains.

Tags : DOMINANCE   PROVISION   CONTRAVENTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved