On September 7, 2020, CCI passed an order dismissing the information filed by Mr. Vijay Chaudhary against India Yamaha Motor Private Limited (‘Yamaha’) alleging a contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act.^[1]

The informant, an authorized dealer for Yamaha, was aggrieved by the unilateral termination of its dealership. The informant alleged that Yamaha had abused its dominant position by (a) failing to provide a copy of the executed dealership agreements to the informant; (b) terminating the dealership of 45 years without any justifications or plausible reasons; and (c) appointing another dealer as its replacement, all of which resulted in significant monetary losses to the informant.

CCI noted that given the differing characteristics and consumer preferences the scooters and motorcycles manufactured by Yamaha were not substitutable with each other. Accordingly, CCI delineated two relevant markets, i.e. the market for ‘manufacture and sale of scooters in India’ and ‘manufacture and sale of motorcycles in India’. CCI noted that Yamaha had a market share of less than 10% in both these markets and these markets were dominated by various established players such as Hero MotoCorp Limited, Honda Motorcycles & Scooters India Private Limited, TVS Motor Company, and Royal Enfield. CCI further noted that its assessment would not change, even if the geographical market was restricted to the State of Rajasthan (where the informant’s dealership was located). In the absence of a finding of dominance against Yamaha, CCI passed a closure order under Section 26(2) of the Act dismissing all allegations.

[1] Case No. 27 of 2020, Order dated September 7, 2020.