AGGARWAL AGENCIES Vs. PLATINUM AGENCIES P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/ complainant has filed this complaint against the respondents under Sec.10 (b) read with Sec.31 ind Sec.37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) to seek redressal of his grievances arising from the alleged indulgence in the monopolistic trade practices as defined in Sec.2 (i) of the MRTP Act by the respondents.

(2.) The respondents are a Company engaged in the business of production, bottling and distribution of soft drink products of Coca Cola India Limited. The respondents have been carrying out the supply and distribution of products through a network of about 300 sole selling agents/distributors duly appointed by them in different areas. The applicant/ complainant was appointed a sole selling agent/ distributor in the area of Adarsh Nagar/azadpur, New Delhi in 1994 for sale and distribution of the products of the respondents. As per agreed terms, the sole selling agents/distributors are required to make the supply and distribution of the said products to the retailers at the same price at which they receive these goods from the respondents without charging any profit or any other charges from the customers. For undertaking this work, the sole selling agents/ distributors are paid commission remuneration @ 10% on the bill value of the products supplied. On 1.7.1999, the respondents terminated the distribution arrangements with the applicant/ complainant as well as other distributors and switched over to making supplies directly to the retailers in all the areas. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant/complainant has preferred this complaint to the Commission.

(3.) The applicant/complainant has tried to clothe his contention with monopolistic trade practices by alleging that the termination of about 300 sole selling agents/distributors has led to the erosion and distortion of competition and also to unreasonable increase in the profits of the respondents. These allegations appear to be too shallow and without any basis. In the earlier system of distribution also the sole selling agents/ distributors played no part in determining the prices. They were mandated to charge the price fixed by the producers. Hence, it cannot be said that the change over to the new system, has by itself, resulted in the distortion of competition or raising of prices at an unreasonable level. Similarly, the allegation of unreasonable increase in the profits of the respondents is a mere conjecture. For all kinds of distribution and marketing arrangements, whether direct or through distributors, a cost has to be incurred by the producers. In the earlier system, commission @ 10% was payable to the distributors and in the new system some expenditure has to be incurred on the substitute of the earlier system. In sum, none of these allegations fall within the ambit of the Monopolistic Trade Practices as defined in Sec.2 (i) of the MRTP Act.