CCI rejects complaints against NIIT

The Competition Commission today dismissed allegations of unfair business practices against skill and talent development firm NIIT with regard to franchise agreements.
The Commission's order has come on separate complaints filed by NIIT's three Hyderabad-based franchisees, which are engaged in the business of provision of computer education and training services.
Since all the three complaints were against NIIT and the allegations were "substantially similar", the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has come out with a common order for the three cases.
It was alleged that NIIT was abusing its dominant position through its franchise agreements and indulging in anti-competitive practices.

For the case, the CCI considered the "market for the provision of computer education and training services in India" as the relevant one.
In an order, the CCI observed that apart from NIIT, there are many other players operating in the relevant market and offering similar courses in the area of computer education.

The regulator said even if the relevant market is narrowed to the city of Hyderabad, "the OP (NIIT) is not the dominant player with presence of large players like Jetking, Aptech etc in the market".
The Commission also noted that the prevailing competition is compelling NIIT to venture into online mode of delivery though it learning portals such as Training.com, nguru and NIIT.tv.

"In order to improve efficiency in the market and to add value for the consumers, almost all the services including professional training are imparted through online mode rather than through the traditional classroom mode to meet growing requirements of the consumers.
"This signifies that the OP's conduct is not contrary to the dynamics of competition in the relevant market," CCI said.
The Commission disposed of the complaints against NIIT after finding no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act.
While Section 3 pertains to anti-competitive agreements, Section 4 relates to abuse of dominant market position.