Background Facts:

Mr. Umair Ali filed a complaint against M/s. Kaymu.pk for prima facie violation of Section 10(2) (a) and (b) read with Section 1 of the Competition Act, 2010, alleging that the Respondent was involved in the distribution of false and misleading information through its marketing and advertising campaign on its website that lacked a reasonable basis and was capable of deceiving the consumers and harming the interests of its competitors. The complainant asserted that he ordered a watch from the Respondent’s website, which when delivered, was in a poor condition and very different as compared to the one shown in the product description on the website. The Complainant further purported, on the website, to be the mediator in case of dispute, but withdrew from the responsibility of resolving the dispute appropriately.

An enquiry was subsequently conducted based on which a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent

Order:

The Commission stated that it is unambiguously clear that the Commission is empowered to initiate an enquiry only on three occasions which are (i) on its own, (ii) upon a reference filed by the Federal Government, and (iii) on a complaint filed by an undertaking or a registered association of consumers.

In the instant matter, the proceedings were initiated filed by a consumer (and not an undertaking), and the Commission is not empowered under Section 37(2) of the Competition Act to proceed with an enquiry on the complaint of a consumer. Nowhere in the definition of ‘undertaking’ is the word consumer used. Therefore, the enquiry and the show cause notice issued on the basis thereof was set aside.

However, without discussing the merits of the case, the matter was demanded back to the Registrar, who was directed to place the complaint before the Commission within 30 days from the date of the Order. The Order did not preclude the Commission from authorizing the conduct of de novo enquiry in the instant matter in accordance with law.