CCI states that mere addition of an additional feature which the consumer could himself add at his discretion is not sufficient to delineate the product into a separate relevant market per se.
In the present case, Ms. Dejee Singh, Mr. Salag Ram Baveja, Mr. Kamal Kumar Luthra, Mr. Parveen Saluja, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Satish Kumar Bhatti, Mr. Surinder Singh Mathur, Mr. Arun Khanna, Mr. Ravinder Singh and Ms. Naresh Ahuja (Informants) filed an information against M/s Sana Realtors Private Limited (Sana Realtors) alleging violation of provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. The Informants allege that Sana Realtors has abused its dominant position in the relevant market by entering into a unilateral agreement with the Informants which contain unfair and arbitrary clauses and demanding exorbitant payments with hidden charges from the Informants in relation to its project ‘Precision Soho Towers’.
CCI notes that the primary grievance of the Informants was the delayed delivery of possession of units. CCI observes that Sana Realtors was an enterprise as envisaged in the Act. CCI defines the relevant market in the present case may be defined as “market for commercial units for office space” and states that mere addition of an additional feature which the consumer could himself add at his discretion was not sufficient to delineate the product into a separate relevant market per se. CCI determines that Sana Realtors was not in a dominant position in the relevant market as more established players were already present. Thus, CCI concludes that in the absence of dominance, abuse of dominance could not be established.
CCI dismisses the case for no contravention of section 3 of the Act was established.