CCI Closes Anti-Competitive Conduct Case Against Rapido, Says Bike Taxi Permit Issue Falls Under MV Act

The order dated March 17, 2026 was passed by a Coram comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag.

“The Commission notes that the crux of the allegation raised by the Informant is that private vehicles without necessary permits, are being used by the OP and is of the view that the same falls beyond the purview of the Act. A special legislation, i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, having read the Information and the annexures, the Commission is of the view that no prima facie case of contravention under Section 3 and/or Section 4 of the Act has been made out by the Informant and that the present Information be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.”, the Commission observed.

The information was filed by Vedansh Pandey, Director of Mantramugdh Communications and Consultancy (OPC) Pvt Ltd, which operates a licensed aggregator platform, “Anything Legit” in Uttarakhand.

He alleged that Rapido was deploying private two-wheelers without valid permits, commercial insurance, or compliance with transport regulations, thereby enabling it to offer lower fares and unfairly divert customers.

It was further alleged that such practices allowed Rapido to undercut prices by 15–30%, resulting in losses of around Rs. 10 lakhs to the informant and a significant decline in its driver base. Allegations of denial of market access and anti-competitive conduct under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act were also raised by Pandey.

The Commission noted that the core of the allegations pertained to the use of private vehicles without permits, which is governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It held that such issues fall outside the ambit of competition law.

The CCI also found that the informant had failed to provide any material evidence demonstrating anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position. It observed that mere price undercutting or business loss without proof of dominance or exclusionary conduct, does not attract provisions of the Act. The CCI held:

“The Commission also notes that the Information is devoid of any evidence to indicate any competition concern as envisaged under the provisions of Section 3 and/or Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, having regard to the nature of allegations raised in the Information, the Commission is of the view that the delineation of the relevant market and subsequent assessment of dominance and abuse may be dispensed with.”

Accordingly, the complaint was closed under the Competition Act, while rejecting the request for interim relief and declining to order any investigation by the Director General.