OLA CASE-

1) Facts of the case - In this case, there were 2 informants - Fast Track Call
Cab Pvt. Ltd. and Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
2) They had filed information, separately, under Section 19(1) (a) of the
Competition Act, against ANI Technologies who was the ‘Opposite Party
claiming violation of the provisions of Section 4 [2(a)] of the Act, which
talks about abuse of dominant position by imposing unfair or
discriminatory price. 
3) Since the allegations were similar in both the cases, the Commission
decided to club the matters for the purposes of investigation and final
disposal.
4) In the above case, the informants had made an allegation that since
entering the market for services of radio taxi in Bangalore, Ola had
abused its dominant position due to its increased share in the market. It
was the argument of the informants that due to its market share and
huge capital, Ola was able to shell out low fares and discounts to the
customers while giving attractive incentives to the drivers as well. The
informants further stated that they could not afford to apply the same
business system which proved to be detrimental for their business.
5) The Commission after that directed the Director General (DG) to take up
the matter and submit an investigation report. After thorough
observation and due consideration, the DG noticed that Ola’s market
share was challenged by Uber rapid and fast growth in the market. It
was noted by the DG that in the first six months of 2015-16, while Ola’s
share in the market increased marginally by 2% to 3%, Uber’s share
increased at a rate of 20% to 22%.  The DG opined that for a player to
have a dominant position in the relevant market, it should be able to
hold its market share for a reasonable period of time. In this case, Ola’s
share started declining as Uber entered the relevant market almost 3
years after Ola’s entry.
6) After looking into the observations and findings of the DG in detail, the
Commission gave a comprehensive observation. The Commission does
not fully disagree with the Informants that the low prices of Ola are not
because of cost efficiency, but because of the funding it received from
private equity funds. Hence, the Commission stated that no evidence
could be established to show that such funding was not competitive and
inequitable. It was in fact their penetrative pricing strategy that
facilitated them to gather high market shares in short duration of time.
 7) Therefore, the Commission closed the case stating that the evidence on
record did not establish the dominance of Ola in the market and its
consequent abuse within the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

JIO CASE

1) In this a complaint filed by Bharti Airtel against Reliance Jio, which

entered the telecom market in September 2016. Bharti Airtel contended
that through the services it provided to the user, Reliance Jio was
engaging in predatory pricing in violation of section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the
Competition Act. The services granted by Reliance Jio right after its entry
into the telecom market included a ‘Jio Welcome Offer’ under which
data, voice, video and a full bunch of applications were granted
absolutely free of cost to the purchasers from a time-frame starting on 5
September 2016 until 31 December 2016. Another offer called the
‘Happy New Year’ offer was launched at the commencement of the new
year, through which the consumers could receive unlimited internet
data, messages and voice calls till 31 March 2017. The services provided
by Reliance Jio was the first service that would be absolutely free,
without having any consideration with respect to the volume of network
or data usage.
2) It was alleged by Bharti Airtel that this provision of free services
amounted to predatory pricing, and was in violation of section 4(2)(a)(ii)
of the Act. Under section 4, an enterprise shall be liable for having
conducted ‘predatory pricing’ only if it is held to be in a ‘dominant
position’ in that ‘relevant market’. 'provision of wireless
telecommunication services to end users in each of the 22 circles in
India
3) The CCI went on to note that, according to market data, Reliance Jio
does not have a market share of more than 7% in each of the 22 telecom
circles in India, and the market consists of several players (such as
Vodafone, Idea, Tata, MTNL, etc.) who have similar financial and
technical capabilities. There existed sufficient choice in the market and
the consumers were not in any way dependent on a single service
provider. In light of this, the CCI held that Reliance Jio cannot be said to
be in a dominant position in the relevant market. As it was not in a
dominant position, there does not arise any case for abuse of dominant
position through predatory pricing in the relevant market.