Uber India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCI

Name of the CaseUber India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCI
Case Number    2103 / 2017
Year of the CaseSep-03-2019
AppellantUber India Systems Pvt Ltd
RespondentCompetition Commission of India
CourtSupreme Court of India


The Dispute among Uber and Meru is an exemplary case of the developing fracture between Disruptors and existing business sector players across areas. It delineates that market, which is Driven by advancement regularly witness occupants being tested by new participants, which point to change the financial aspects of existing administrations. Imaginative disruptors can do this through different methods, for example, coordinating undiscovered interest, focusing on disregarded purchaser portions, conveying functionalities beforehand not accessible (by and large at lower costs and better effectiveness) or in any event, making an interest gracefully game plan that didn’t exist.

Keywords:- Uber, CCI, Meru, Finance, Administration, Imaginative disruptors

Facts of the case

Uber’s rebate and motivating force offered to customer fail to measure up with the constancy instigating limits offered to drivers to keep them its system to the rejection of other market players. Uber pays drivers/vehicle proprietors appended on its system irrationally high motivations well beyond and notwithstanding the outing toll got from the travellers. An outline of the motivating forces gave to one armada proprietor connected to Uber’s system, having 4 vehicles

Issues Raised

  1. Whether unjustifiable or oppressive condition in buy or offer of products or administration alluded to in sub-provision and unreasonable or unfair cost in buy or offer of merchandise (counting savage cost) or administration alluded to in sub-proviso?
  2. Whether it will exclude such biased conditions or costs which might be CIVIL APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2017 and so forth embraced to meet the opposition?
  3. Whether it restricts or confines –
  • Creation of products or arrangement of administrations or market, therefore; or
  • Specialized or logical improvement identifying with merchandise or administrations to the bias of shoppers; or
  • Enjoys practice or works on bringing about the disavowal of market access in any way; or
  • Makes finish of agreements subject to acknowledgement by different gatherings of advantageous commitments which, by their tendency or as per business utilization, have no association with the subject of such agreements; or
  • Utilizes its prevailing situation in one applicable market to go into, or ensure other significant markets.


A Bench of Justices R.F. Nariman and Surya Kant in the wake of hearing contentions of advice, everything being equal talked about on Dominant position and ruthless value issue of Uber taxis. Area 4 (2) of the Act indicates the accompanying practices by a predominant endeavour or gathering of undertakings as misuses: [1]

  • Straightforwardly or in a roundabout way forcing unjustifiable or unfair condition in buy or offer of merchandise or administration;
  • Legitimately or in a roundabout way forcing the unjustifiable or biased cost.

    According to Explanation (b) toward the finish of Section (4) of the Competition Act 2002, ‘ruthless value’ signifies the offer of merchandise or arrangement of administrations at a cost underneath cost with the subject to lessen rivalry or dispose of contenders.

    Ruthless estimating is evaluating one’s merchandise underneath the creation cost, so different parts in the market, which aren’t prevailing, can’t contend with the cost of the predominant player and should leave the market. Based on this reality and report the Supreme Court excused the intrigue. Court has coordinated the Director-General of Competition Commission of India to finish the examination concerning maltreatment of predominant position and ruthless valuing inside 6 Months from today.

    Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd, (‘Meru’) which is occupied with the matter of radio taxi administration business in India had in 2015 moved toward the CCI in 2015 against the Uber Group charging that Uber, attributable to its profound pockets had turned to the various enemy of serious practices to fortify its predominant situation in the radio taxi administrations market in the National Capital Region (NCR) zone. Meru had likewise claimed that Uber was offering immense limits notwithstanding effectively diminished duties to shoppers and high motivations to hold drivers at the expense of losing Rs. 204/ – per trip. As per Meru, Uber’s arrangement of accusing costs underneath the cost of a target to take out contenders and recover venture at a later stage added up to ruthless estimating.

    Subsequent to hearing both Meru and Uber, the CCI took a by all appearances see that the pertinent geographic market for the radio taxi administrations was Delhi instead of NCR and that Uber didn’t appreciate a prevailing situation in the Delhi market since there is an energetic and dynamic radio taxi administration market in Delhi comprising of a few specialist co-ops considering the fluctuating piece of the overall industry figures of the different players.

    Meru tested CCI’s organization excusing its protest before the Appellate Authority. COMPAT had put aside the request for CCI and remanded the issue to CCI for examination, taking note of that the Commission has considered Delhi as the applicable market while the data proposed Delhi NCR Region as the important market and as it would like to think confining pertinent geographic market to Delhi was a blunder and the significant geographic market, at first, sight, ought to have been radio taxi administration in Delhi NCR because the request of the High Court of Delhi on the command on the utilization of CNG openly transport inside NCT was overhauled by the Supreme Court to cover the whole NCR of Delhi and as indicated by Motor Vehicle Act, taxis which work under a vacationer office grant are not obliged to work inside civil cutoff points and taxicabs, for example, Uber and Ola use traveller taxi allows, so political outlines do not influence clients.

Further Aspects

Further, as regards the dominance, the Commission has doubted the credibility of the “Tech Sci” report one grounds that in another research report, called “6Wresearch”, Ola had been reported to be in dominance, and not Uber. COMPAT noted that since the two reports in question showed contrary results, the Commission decided to ignore both of them but then subsequently alluded to a combined reading of the two reports[2]. Therefore, COMPAT held that though it cannot be said definitively that there is an abuse inherent in the business practices adopted by the respondents, but the size of discounts and incentives show that there are either phenomenal efficiency improvements which are replacing existing business models with the new business models or there could be an anti-competitive stance to it. It held that facts on the record are enough to trigger an investigation by the DG and directed the DG to conduct an investigation into the matter and submit the report to the Commission within the period prescribed under the Act.

Uber had appealed to Supreme Court against COMPAT order. Supreme Court today, 3rd September 2019 dismissed the appeal, thereby directing the DG to complete the investigation within 6 months.


It has frequently been the situation in upset business sectors that officeholders will, in general, lose a piece of the overall industry also, benefits (simply an aftereffect of rivalry) and consequently demand claims of uncalled for rivalry against the new contestant. A situation of this nature merits a goal examination, which similarly gauges the general likelihood of characteristic serious market results and anti-competitive practices. In the event that enemy of serious conduct would win in a market, it would contrarily influence the customer regarding quality, cost and decision. Also, rivalry controllers can’t just treat inventive plans of action in the same light as others. This is because there are specialized calculations associated with the working of these models, which are not quite the same as how traditional models work. By and large, the advanced and predominant arrangements offered by new participants should be perceived and seen positively by the opposition offices, except if an itemized comprehension of the calculation (or plan of action) proposes that there is a characteristic probability of hostile to serious conduct.

[1] https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/1196737/uber-india-systems-pvt-ltd-vs-competition-commission

[2] https://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/supreme-court-dismisses-ubers-appeal-directs-investigation-into-predatory-pricing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *