PIAM, members given a month to provide evidence on non-infringement of Competition Act

The General Insurance Association of Malaysia (PIAM) and its 22 members have been given a month to forward evidence proving that they had not breached Section 4 of the Competition Act 2010.

This is against the backdrop of the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) recently imposing a RM213.4 million penalty on PIAM and the 22 local general insurers for an "anti-competitive agreement".

MyCC Chairman Tan Sri Norma Yaakob said the one-month period starts from Feb 22, the date when the decision was made.

She said the move was a proposed decision and the Commission had not finalised anything as such, adding, the affected parties could come forward and make representations.

"There is a process being offered to PIAM and its affected members. We'll listen to them.

"We can look at it again. We hope they'll be able to give us fresh evidence which we never had an opportunity to consider previously," she added.

She told a press conference this on the sidelines of the Malaysia Competition Conference 2017 here today.

The MyCC action followed investigations into an alleged infringement between PIAM and the Federation of Automobile Workshop Owners' Association of Malaysia (FAWOAM) on agreed discount rates for motor parts prices and the labour rate for repairs of motor vehicles involved in an accident.

The agreement was for the hourly rates and spare part prices chargeable for commonly used vehicles including Proton, Perodua, Naza, Nissan, Toyota and Honda.

In response to the proposed financial penalty, PIAM urged the MyCC to reconsider its decision, while Bank Negara Malaysia said it would severely impact consumer interest.

On the penalty sum, MyCC's member Datuk Dr Sothi Rachagan said the commission could impose up to 10 per cent of each company's global total turnover, but suggested instead, only one per cent.

"If they want relief from the liability, the companies should look at Section 5 under the Act which provides a cumulative condition.

"Section 5 is treated as a relief from liability (which was charged under Section 4)," he added. -- Bernama