India Legal Bureau
Early this month, the Competition Commission of India ruled in favour of The Times of India in a case filed against the newspaper by a potential subscriber. The subscriber alleged that the newspaper had abused its dominant position in the market and violated Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
A provision in the Section explicitly says that an enterprise can’t directly or indirectly impose unfair or discriminatory condition in the purchase or sale of goods and services.
The Times of India had made a “combo” offer for Mumbai subscribers. According to the offer, those subscribing the Mumbai edition of the newspaper could also choose any one of the other Times Group publications like Mumbai Mirror, The Economic Times, Maharashtra Times (in Marathi) and Navabharat Times (in Hindi) at a total price of Rs 7.
The subscriber complained that news vendors would insist on giving him only Mumbai Mirror along with The Times of India in the “combo” offer despite his repeated requests that he be given The Economic Times along with The Times of India.
The subscriber also alleged that The Times of India had not responded to several complaints made by him in this regard, and that is the reason he approached the Commission.
The Commission however, ruled that “all the newspapers available in the combo offer including The Times of India, Mumbai Mirror, The Economic Times and Maharashtra Times are also available separately at their respective selling prices in Mumbai. Hence, the consumers have the choice to either purchase the newspapers in the combo offer or to purchase each newspaper separately. Further, the Commission notes that the video recording submitted by the Informant shows that some vendors are stating that the combo offer is available only for annual subscribers.”
Based on all the material, the Commission held that The Times of India “does not appear to have imposed any restriction or unfair condition on the consumers through the said offer as it is not compelling the consumers to buy the newspapers only in the combo offer”. Additionally, the commission pointed out that the newspaper cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the vendors.