ASSIGNMENT
OF
COMPETITION LAW
ON
TOPIC: CASE ANALYSIS OF M/S FCM TRAVELS SOLUTION (INDIA)
LIMITED vs. TRAVEL AGENTS FEDERATION OF INDIA & OTHERS
SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:
MUNEER SIDDIQUE(GU15R0513) Prof. SADAF ALI KHAN
SEMESTER-VIII (Assistant professor of Law)
GLOCAL LAW SCHOOL
1|Page
M/s FCM Travels Solution (India) Limited vs. Travel Agents Federation of
India & others
Parties to the Case Informant-
M/s FCM Travels Solution (India) Limited
Travel Agents Federation of India & others
Facts of the Case
In November 2008, the international Airlines including Singapore Airlines & Silk Airlines
announced 100% cuts in commission of the travel agents. Some of the travel associations, who
were unhappy with the reduction of commission, formed a cartel and as a result thereof, TAFI
(Travel Agents Federation of India), TAAI (Travel Agents Association of India) and lAAl
(IATA Agents Association of India) started intimidating the member travel agents and advised
all their members to boycott selling of tickets of these airlines and divert bookings to other
airlines. The association also persuaded their members to join them and boycott the sale of
Singapore and Silk Airlines. The Informant didn‟t join the movement and as a result, the
associations after giving a warning expelled the informant. The informant filed the instant
complaint before DG (I&R), MRTP Commission alleging cartelization and adoption of
restrictive trade practices. On the basis of the information received, the DG initiated the
investigation. The association maintained that protest was a peaceful way of collective
bargaining and should not be construed as a way to curb competition in market. Consequently
upon the repeal of MRTP Act, this case was transferred to Competition Commission of India
under the Competition Commission Act, 2002.
Issues Involved
Issue 1: Whether the Conduct of the association is anti-competitive under the provisions of the
Competition Act 2002?
Issue 2: Whether the acting upon on the boycott call given by TAAI, TAFI & IAAI resulted
in formation of vertical agreements between the associations & their members?
Issue 3: Whether owing to the resumed selling of the Singapore Airline tickets makes the
instant proceedings in fructuous?
2|Page
Decision of the CCI
The CCI upon inquiry found that the present case is similar to one of the cases that CCI has
already decided in the past. The associations namely, TAFI & TAAI didn‟t cooperate during
the investigation and as a result, CCI decided the case on the basis of the replies filed by the
respondent in one of the case bearing no. 03/2009 coupled with the statements given by the
office bearers of associations. On the basis of the information received and relied upon, CCI
decided the following issues: The Commission referring to case no. 03/2009 and the reply filed
by TAFI, the admissions made by the TAFI in Delhi High Court in case No. 454 of 2009, press
statements issued by office bearers of the respective associations in newspapers, hoarding
placed clearly indicate that conduct of the airline in boycotting the sale of Singapore airlines is
anti-competitive under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. As a result of which
Singapore Airlines sales went down by 29%. The Commission did not agree to the view given
by Director General that call to boycott call made by TAAI & other associations amounted to
vertical agreements. The Commission stated that for the applicability of section 3(4) of the Act,
it is necessary that the enterprise must be at different levels of production chain in different
markets, which is not in the present case, since the travel association and travel agents both the
not engaged in providing travel agency services, it‟s only the agent. The Commission observed
that although the travel agents have lifted the boycott on Singapore Airlines & resumed the
sale of tickets of Singapore Airlines since January 2010, but this will not bind the Commission
from exercising its jurisdiction & power from taking within its purview the past anti-
competitive activities. However, Commission stated that as penalty has already been imposed
on the associations in similar case (03/2009, mentioned above), hence there will be no double
jeopardy for one act. Thus the Commission opined that there is no penalty on associations but
directed them to refrain from such anti-competitive activities in future.
Analysis of Order
The case laid two cardinal principles in competition jurisdiction. Firstly, it expanded the scope
of CCI in adjudicating past anti-competitive matters and secondly, it identified & addressed a
thin line of difference between the anti-competitive agreement and collective bargaining
3|Page
