The Competition Commission has dismissed a complaint alleging unfair business practices against wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Technology India with regard to service conditions of the equipments supplied by the firm. In an order dated August 7, the fair trade regulator said no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of either Section 3 or 4 of the Competition Act is made out against Vestas.
Accordingly, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) disposed of the complaint. Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act deal with anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant market position, respectively.
The complainant, Hyderabad-based Swarna Properties, had stated that it had entered into a pact with Vestas for supply of wind turbines and the sale of the same was conditional upon acceptance of maintenance services, among others. Accordingly, a service agreement was entered into between the two entities.
It was alleged that such agreement containing exclusive service conditions requiring Swarna to avail the services of Vestas only is in contravention of Section 3. Another allegation was that Vestas had violated Section 4.
For the case, the regulator considered “the market for supply of wind turbines in India” as the relevant one.
With regard to the assessment of dominance of Vestas in the relevant market, the CCI observed that apart from the firm, there are several other domestic and global manufacturers operating in it.
Noting that Vestas does not appear to enjoy a position of strength which could enable it to operate independently of its competitors in the relevant market, the CCI said “the question of abuse does not arise in the instant matter and no case is made out under Section 4 of the Act” against the firm.
In relation to the service agreement, the CCI said that no case of violation of Section 3 is made out as the matter does not pertain to a horizontal agreement between two or more players in the market.
“The informant (Swarna) has not provided any evidence to substantiate the allegations and has not even provided the copy of the agreement,” the regulator said.