'Q Cars' was a radio taxi service provider, which was offering customer discounts and royalty programmes, etc., M group was a competitor who alleged that owing to its dominant position, 'Q Cars' group has devised certain

The present case is similar to the case of Meru Travel Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd & Ors [CCI] Case No. 96 of 2015 [Decided on 10/02/2016] wherein the Competition Commission of India held that the definition of relevant geographic market in the radio taxi services market has been dealt with by the Commission in many previous cases. The Commission was of the view that the relevant geographic market in that case would be "Delhi". The Commission held - "It has considered the TechSci research report and it is a matter of fact that Uber Group was not interviewed during the collection of data in the TechSci report. Evidently, there are glaring differences in the data and results depicted by the two research reports i.e. research report and TechSci report; casting a serious doubt on their authenticity and neutrality. The conflicting results indicate that either the data relied upon in the said reports is not accurate or the data has been selectively collected and relied upon to reach some predetermined results. Therefore, despite the Informant's attempt to discredit the results of the research report, the Commission is apprehensive in drawing conclusions with regard to the market share of UBER on the basis of such contradictory research reports. Hence, despite the deficiencies observed above, a conclusion may be drawn from a combined reading of both these research reports that there exists stiff competition, at least between OLA and UBER, with regard to the radio taxi industry in Delhi. Further, both the research reports have acknowledged the presence of other major players in the market, apart from UBER and OLA. Further, the fluctuating market share figures of the various players show that the competitive landscape in the relevant market is quite vibrant and dynamic. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Commission is of the view that the radio taxi services market in Delhi is competitive in nature and UBER does not appear to be holding a dominant position in the relevant market. Since Uber group does not seem to be dominant in the relevant market, there is no need to go into the examination of its conduct in such relevant market. Based on the aforesaid, the Commission is of the view that no case of contravention is made out against Uber Group." Applying the conclusion of the above case, it can be concluded that 'Q Cars' has not contravened the provisions of Competition Act, 2002.