NEW DELHI: Fair trade practices watchdog MRTPC has given a clean chit to Maruti Suzuki India (MSI) in a case filed by rival Hyundai Motor India Ltd (HMIL) over the publication of advertisements, which the latter claimed were 'disparaging'.
Disposing of the one-year-old legal battle between the two auto giants, in which the Korean car maker accused MSI (formerly Maruti Udyog Ltd) of indulging in unfair trade practice by issuing 'misleading' advertisements, an MRTPC bench said there was no immediate cause for suspecting such a practice by MSI.
"We have prima facie come to the conclusion that there is no immediate cause of suspecting an unfair trade practice on behalf of the respondent (MSI) and it may not be necessary to proceed in the main petition," the bench comprising MMK Sardana and DC Gupta said.
The Commission observed that as per an undertaking, MSI had already stopped publication of objected advertisements in newspapers and hoardings.
In September, 2006, HMIL had filed a case against MSI's advertisements, which used findings of a survey by TNS-TCS alleging it disparaged the company's products. During the subsequent hearing in November, MSI submitted that it would not publish the disputed advertisement.
Later, HMIL again filed an application alleging MSI that despite its assurance, the latter continued to use findings of the TNS-TCS study in advertisements and its dealers were circulating pamphlets and posters.
To this, MSI had contended that posters and pamphlets were outside the purview of HMIL petition. Later, HMIL amended its original petition.
HMIL also brought to the Commission's notice an advertisement published by MSI in Deccan Herald on Jan 1, 2007, in which it claimed mileage advantage of its vehicle on the basis of the same study.
Rejecting it, the commission said, "In view of the statement made by the respondent (MSI) as on 3-11-2006, it would not be possible to accept the prayer made in the amended application."
"We are of the view that in this advertisement (published in Deccan Herald) the respondent may have puffed up their product but in no way...the product of the applicant (HMIL) has been disparaged," observed the Commission.
Meanwhile, the Commission allowed HMIL to bring the matter afresh, if felt necessary, in case of any violations by its rival.
