Jeetender Gupta Vs.

Competition Commission of India

& Ors

Observation of Hon’ble Competition Appelate Tribunal Appeal No.30 of 2014

Order passed u/s 53B

Date of Order: 4th July 2014

Quorum Strength: 2

Dissenting Order-No

Reference PATICULARS
Page- Points of Determination
1,2,3 1)whether the concerned Appealant (Shri Jeetender Gupta) had a locus
standi in the matter.
2)Has BMW India Ltd. abused its dominant position in the relevant market
by-:
(i)not clarifing to the prospective customers that for every puncture or flat
tyre, however minor it may be, they would have no option than to get the
tyre replaced.
(ii) not providing spare tyre, the car would continue to run for a few
kilometres before it could be sent to a “BMW” service centre which would
affect the tyre damage and hence the value that can be recovered through
the insurance
Appealant has no Locus-Standi
Page-1,2 We have also noted that there is no authorization from the company nor
has Shri Gupta joined the said company as a party before the CCI or in this
appeal. We, therefore, do not see any locus standiin the appellant to
appear before the CCI. The CCI has not taken this question into
consideration. However, in order to put the records straight, we must
mention that the informant has no locus standi as he was not in any
manner concerned with the purchase or ownership of the car. It is also
not his case that the said car was to be given by the company for his own
personal use. Under the circumstances, the CCI would have been justified
in rejecting the information on the basis of lack of locus standi. The learned
counsel, who is appearing in person, argues before us that in the matter of
Companies Act, an informant is not required to have any locus standi. He
can do it by way of furthering the cause of competition in the market. We
are afraid that we do not find even that contention to be correct as the legal
machinery under the CCI can not be moved by a person who has no
concern whatsoever with the subject. It is not as if the informant was a
dealer of the car or had any connection with the trade of the car or was in
any manner so connected with the market so as to have any locus standi
before the CCI. Such being the case, we are not in a position to accept the
contention that he had the locus standi before the CCI.
Page-6 On the Issue of Correctness of CCI's order u/s 26(2)
We are quite convinced with the correctness of the order of the CCI
and would confirm the same

1
Jeetender Gupta Vs. Competition Commission of India
& Ors

Decision
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.