In what may come as good news to Ola Electric, TVS Motor Co, Ather Energy, and Hero MotoCorp (Vida), the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has junked a plea against them for taking unfair advantage of the FAME policy.
A complaint was filed against the EV makers players for allegedly under-pricing their electric two-wheelers as to avail FAME 2 subsidy. The EV makers had priced their offering under Rs 150,000, the maximum pricing allowed to avail the subsidy, and had charged customers extra for essential components such as chargers and software among others. This the complainant said was an alleged abuse of dominant position by the OEMs in contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
Furthermore, as per the information provided, Ola, TVS Motors, Ather and Vida held market share of 17.57%, 7.51%, 8.32% and 15.75%, respectively, in CY 2022.
From the information available in public domain Hero Electric and Okinawa held 28.23% and 20.08% market share respectively, followed by Ampere with 10.65% market share, whereas the OPs viz. Ather, Ola and TVS garnered a market share of 8.63%, 6.21% and 4.09%, respectively, in FY2022. The “Commission notes that none of the market players appear to have a stable market share or position.”
It further finds that with the industry growing at a rapid pace, the competition is set to intensify as more players compete for the market share and ramp up production.
The CCI in its order noted that there appears to be “no single player which is able to exert market power in its favour or appears to demonstrate a position of strength to operate independently of market forces.”
Therefore, it says none of the accused (EV makers) appear to have a dominant position in the relevant market. “Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against any of the OPs in the instant matter. Accordingly, the information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the said request is rejected.”
