MyCC weighing options after competition tribunal allows appeal by insurers

 

MyCC had penalised Persatuan Insurans Am Malaysia and its 22 members over an agreement on trade discounts and hourly rates for car repairs.

PETALING JAYA: The Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) says it is weighing its options after the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) allowed an appeal by Persatuan Insurans Am Malaysia (PIAM) and its 22 members against a MyCC decision two years ago.

In the September 2020 decision, MyCC said PIAM and its 22 members had infringed Section 4 of the Competition Act 2010 in that the parties had entered into an agreement on the application of trade discounts on automotive parts prices and hourly labour rates for motor vehicle repairs by workshops under the PIAM Approved Repairers Scheme (PARS).

A Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) statement on the decision noted that besides imposing financial penalties, MyCC also directed the parties to cease and desist from implementing the agreed parts trade discount and the hourly labour rate, and for such discounts and rates to be determined independently by individual insurers and workshops.

In a Sept 8 report in The Edge Markets, the three-member CAT tribunal, which unanimously allowed the appeal by PIAM and its 22 members, found that MyCC had committed a fundamental error in its findings on law and facts.

MyCC CEO Iskandar Ismail said the commission is analysing and weighing its options, which includes filing a judicial review.

“This is because the decision by the CAT may create ambiguity on how the law in relation to anti-competitive agreements through associations is interpreted,” he said in a statement.

Iskandar said the mere fact that the outcome of the interpretation of the law affects another regulator’s power – in this instance, BNM – could not preclude MyCC from exercising its duties.

MyCC emphasised that the CAT held that MyCC, by its nature and function as a quasi-judicial body, is empowered to interpret a provision of law, whether it is relevant or otherwise.

It also said it should be noted that in 2017 and again in 2020, both BNM and PIAM had asserted that the infringing agreement was made based on a directive by BNM.

In 2020, BNM said the arrangement was put in place through the facilitation and direction of BNM to the general insurers to address disputes between workshops and general insurance companies that had adversely impacted consumers.

BNM said this was due to protracted delays and disagreements over insurance claims payments for motor repairs. - FMT