Informant complained under Section 19(1)(a) of Competition Act, 2002 alleging NBFC violated Fair Practice Code and committed abuse for wrong EMI calculations. Commission held no prima facie file case to allege market dominance or market power in all relevant parties under Section 4 of Act.
jected?
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 18 of 2022
In Re:
Mr. Tallada Dilip Kumar S/o Mr. Satyanarayana, D. No. 81-39-05, Vankata Padmavathi Nilayam, J. N. Road, Venkateswara Nagar, Rajamundry, Andhra Pradesh – 533106
Informant
And Shriram City Union Finance Limited 123, Anagappa Naicken Street, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600001
Opposite Party
CORAM
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson
Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member
Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Case No. 18 of 2022
Page 1 of 6
been engaged in the business of lending money to the public and collecting deposits. The Informant is stated to be a consumer under Section 2(f) (ii) of the Act.
Case No. 18 of 2022
Page 2 of 6
Consumer Education and Protection Cell, RBI, to examine some loans obtained by borrowers from the OP for confirming the veracity of the ‘technical glitch’ as stated by the OP.
Case No. 18 of 2022
Page 3 of 6
Case No. 18 of 2022
Page 4 of 6
and 2013, respectively, to cross-check the rate of interest/EMI charged by the OP. The account statements were allegedly not supplied to him by the OP in spite of several reminders and requests by the Informant. Accordingly, the Informant has alleged that the OP, inter alia, is carrying out its business against the spirit of the Act and violating the FPC set out by the RBI.
‘ apart from NBFCs, multiple options in the form of private and public sector banks, regional rural banks, cooperative banks etc. are available to the consumers for availing various types of loans in which OPs are dealing, not only in Andhra Pradesh, but on a pan-India basis. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, an exact delineation of relevant market is not required as it would not materially impact the assessment of dominance. In the absence of dominance, there is no occasion for the Commission to look into the alleged abusive conduct’ .
Case No. 18 of 2022
Page 5 of 6
the market power of OP since the passing of the earlier order dated 30.06.2021, in Case No. 08 of 2020 cited above. Consequently, the Commission refrains from commenting in any manner on the allegations of abuse as contained in the Information.
Sd/(Ashok Kumar Gupta) Chairperson Sd/(Sangeeta Verma) Member Sd/(Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi) Member
New Delhi
Date: 28.06.2022
Case No. 18 of 2022
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commission can examine abuse allegations under Section 4 without specifying a relevant market and establishing dominance.
Whether the Commission requires delineation of relevant market when assesssing abuse absent dominance.
Whether complaint under Section 19(1)(a) sustains without a prima facie competition concern filled filed as at 11 of information
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
In Re: Shriram City Union Finance LimitedReferred¶41
Case No. 08 of 2020
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar Gupta
Sangeeta Verma
Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
