The Food Company for online orders, is charging prices higher than the prices (menu prices) charged by the respective restaurants for walk-in customers, without the knowledge of the customers. This means that the custome

Allegation against the Food Company charging higher prices is not correct. Reason: Before examining the abuse of dominance by an entity generally the first step is to delineate the relevant market in terms of Section 2(r) of the Competition Act, which in turn requires delineation of Relevant Product Market and Relevant Geographic Market in terms of Section 2(t) and 2(s) of the Competition Act, respectively. The Informant has suggested the relevant product market to be app-based food delivery with restaurant search platform, as iterated in earlier paras. Swiggy does not agree with the relevant market identified by the Informants. As per Swiggy, the distinguishing factor of the food delivery business is the service of receiving a restaurant's food without leaving the comfort of one's home and not the ability to search for restaurants. Swiggy asserted that the consumers can use phone based direct ordering from the restaurants or order directly from the restaurant's website, and merely the search function does not put the platform in a different relevant market as compared to other food delivery options. Thus, the relevant market should be defined as 'market for food delivery'. The Commission notes that the main grievance of the Informants is of charging high prices on the platform by Swiggy. The Commission further notes that Swiggy has denied the said allegation with reference to the contractual arrangement it has entered into with its various Partners (restaurants) seeking them to maintain a uniform price of food items sold by such Partners to customers when dealing with them directly or through the platform of Swiggy. Further, it is evidenced that Swiggy, as and when it has received complaints pertaining to price differentia from its customers, has taken up the matter with the concerned Partner. This indicates, that allegations against Swiggy do not appear to be substantiated in the present case. Further, Swiggy has stated that it only acts as an 'intermediary' as defined under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its role is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored/hosted. The Competition Commission of India also notes the contention of Swiggy that it does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission made through the platform, and thus, any discrepancy in the rates, is solely attributable to Partners and not to it. In this regard, the Competition Commission of India observes that it would be apposite for Swiggy to give sufficient disclosures on its platform that it is not involved in fixation of price of the products/menus of the restaurants on its platform, so as to allay misgivings, if any, in the minds of any stakeholders including the consumers. The Competition Commission of India in the facts and circumstances of the present case observes that it may not be germane to define a precise relevant market and conduct further analysis. Having been satisfied with the averments of Swiggy that it has no role to play in the pricing of the products offered by the Partners on the platform, the Competition Commission of India finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act is made out against Swiggy in the instant matter. Accordingly, the matter is closed under the provisions of section 26(2) of the Competition Act.