UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 03-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
107
UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.
v.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 641 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 03, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Competition Act, 2002: s. 4 – Abuse of dominant position –
Allegation that appellant losing Rs. 204 per trip in respect of every
trip made by cars of the fleet owners which does not make any
economic sense other than pointing to appellant’s intent to eliminate
competition in the market – Held: There is prima facie case u/s.
26(1) as to infringement of s. 4 – Two ingredients for abuse of
dominant position is, the dominant position itself and its abuse –
From the allegation it is clear that if, in fact, a loss is made for trips
made, Explanation (a)(ii) would prima facie be attracted as this
would certainly affect the appellant’s competitors in the appellant’s
favour or the relevant market in its favour – Under s. 4(2)(a), so
long as this dominant position, whether directly or indirectly, imposes
an unfair price in purchase or sale including predatory price of
services, abuse of dominant position also gets attracted – Thus, the
order passed by the appellate tribunal is upheld – Director General
to complete investigation within the stipulated period.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 641 of
2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2016 of the
Competition Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 31 of 2016.
With
Civil Appeal No. 7012 of 2019.
Dhruv Mehta, Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advs., Anuj Berry, Malak Bhatt,
Aman Singh Sethi, P. S. S. Bhargava, S. S. Shroff, Advs. for the Appellant.
Raju Ramchandran, Sr. Adv., Naveen R. Nath, Rahul Jain, Sonal
Jain, Udayan Jain, Ms. Heena Sharma, Kamal Sharma, Ishkaran Singh,
Shankar Naryanan, Advs. for the Respondents.
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 107
107
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Having heard lengthy arguments of Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Shri Raju Ramchandran,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, we are of
the view that interference in these appeals is not called for.
2. The only reason we do so is because we were shown, as part
of information that was provided, the following statement:
“23. Uber’s discount and incentive offered to consumer pale in
comparison with the fidelity inducing discounts offered to drivers
to keep them attached on its network to the exclusion of other
market players. Uber pays drivers/car owners attached on its
network unreasonably high incentives over and above and in
addition to the trip fare received from the passengers. A summary
of the incentives provided to one fleet owner attached to Uber’s
network, having 4 cars, which were driven by 9 drivers is
reproduced below.
Statement period 
 
1st June to 
28th June
Total Trips
 
1,135
Billed to Consumer (Uber’s Collection from Consumer)
Fare
 
256,187
Surge
18,621
Surcharges & tolls
 
23.499
 
 
298,307
Operates Earning [Car Owner’s Earning]
Operator’s Share out of Consumer 
Revenue Service Tax 
100%
274,808
Surcharges & Tolls Reimbursed
4.94%
(12.946)
Others
 
518
Incentives Received from Uber
 
230,464
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
109
Operator’s net earning 
 
516,343
 
 
Uber’s Earning
Revenue Share (Out of Fare and 
Surge) 
0% 
0
Incentives Paid to Drivers 
 
(230,464)
Other adjustments
(518)
Net earning (loss) 
 
515,346
Uber’s Earning 
 
Revenue shares (out of Fare and 
Surge) 
0% 
0
Incentives Paid to Drives
(230,464)
Other adjustments 
 
(518)
Net earning (Loss) 
 
(230,982)
Per trip Consumer revenue 
242
Per trip Uber Net Loss
(204)
3. In light of the abovementioned statement, it can be seen that
Uber was losing Rs.204 per trip in respect of the every trip made by the
cars of the fleet owners, which does not make any economic sense
other than pointing to Uber’s intent to eliminate competition in the market.
Copies of the statements of aforesaid fleet owners’ along with a summary
for the period June 1 to June 28,2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure
A-15 Colly.”
4. Based on this information alone, we are of the view that it
would be very difficult to say that there is no prima facie case under
Section 26(1) as to infringement of Section 4 of the Competition Act,
2002.
5. Section 4 is set out hereinbelow:
6. Abuse of dominant position.-(1) No enterprise or group shall
abuse its dominant position.
UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. v. COMPETITION
COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.