India's electric two-wheeler (ETW) market, once a quiet hum, has roared into life thanks to the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric & Hybrid Vehicles Policy (FAME). But with this rapid growth comes the inevitable question: are the gears of competition grinding smoothly, or are some players pulling ahead using unfair tactics? That's the crux of the recent Competition Commission of India (CCI) case (Case No. 31 of 2023), a case worth exploring in detail.
The Spark of Accusation
The case was ignited by an anonymized informant, let's say xyz, who accused major ETW manufacturers, including Ola Electric, Hero MotoCorp, TVS Motors, and Ather Energy, of exploiting the FAME policy's price limit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for unfair advantage. The alleged offense? A clever sleight of hand with essential components.
The FAME policy aims to make ETWs more affordable by offering subsidies to manufacturers. However, it sets a crucial price ceiling of Rs. 1.5 lakhs (ex-factory) for two-wheelers to qualify. Here's where the plot thickens. xyz alleged that these manufacturers were artificially keeping their vehicle prices within the FAME limit by selling integral parts like chargers and proprietary software upgrades separately, at an additional cost. This, argued Xyz, effectively circumvented the price cap and allowed them to pocket subsidies they wouldn't have been eligible for otherwise.
Think of it like buying a bicycle: if the wheels and handlebars came separately, it wouldn't qualify as a "bicycle" for certain regulations, even though it's clearly meant to be ridden as one. In the same way, XYZ argued, these manufacturers were splitting their offerings to fall within the FAME bracket, even though chargers and software are indispensable for operating an ETW.
How Dominance?
To prove a violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, which prohibits abuse of dominant position, XYZ needed to demonstrate that one or more of these manufacturers held a market-controlling power. This meant showing that a single player could dictate prices, restrict supply, or exclude competitors.
However, the CCI's investigation painted a different picture. While Ola Electric held a notable market share, the Commission couldn't establish the kind of absolute dominance required. None of the companies, it concluded, could truly operate independently of market forces or exert sustained control over pricing or competitor behavior.
This lack of a singular "dominant player" proved fatal for XYZ's case. Without a clear target, the CCI found no prima facie evidence of an unfair advantage being leveraged.
The CCI's verdict might seem like a green light for the accused manufacturers, but the echoes of this case will likely reverberate through the evolving ETW landscape.
Takeaways
- Competition in Flux: The young ETW market is still taking shape, with the playing field constantly shifting. This makes it difficult to pinpoint market dominance, adding complexity to applying competition law principles.
- Policy Gaps and Loopholes: The FAME policy's price ceiling, intended to boost affordability, might have inadvertently opened a door for creative interpretations. Defining "integral parts" more clearly could prevent such ambiguities.
- The Consumer Voice: While the CCI dismissed the case due to a lack of dominant position, the question of consumer welfare remains. Are customers truly getting the best value for their money when crucial components are sold separately at potentially inflated prices?
- The Evolving Regulatory Landscape: As the ETW market matures, regulatory frameworks need to adapt and address potential loopholes to ensure healthy competition and protect consumer interests.
- Transparency and Disclosure: Increased transparency from manufacturers regarding pricing structures and component inclusion could build trust and address concerns about hidden costs.
Conclusion
The xyz v. Ola Electric case might have ended with a closed information file, but the questions it raises remain open for debate. As the Indian ETW market roars ahead, ensuring fair competition and consumer protection will require constant vigilance and a willingness to adapt regulations to the changing terrain. Only then can India truly shift gears towards a sustainable and equitable electric mobility future.
CAclubindia
