The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench, consisting of Chairperson Ms. Ravneet Kaur and Members Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Anil Agrawal, and Mr. Deepak Anurag, has dismissed the complaint against One97 Communications Ltd, the parent company of Paytm, and other involved parties. The Commission determined that the issues raised by the informant were purely individual and contractual, and did not warrant the Commission’s intervention.
The informant’s complaint alleged that Paytm had engaged in anti-competitive practices by entering into an agreement with Aditya Birla Finance, compelling users to utilize their services.
Background:
The informant, a long-time user of Paytm’s services including its mobile wallet and UPI ID, reported an issue in April 2022 while using the Uber app in Gurugram. Despite having sufficient funds, Paytm failed to process the payment for the Uber fare from either the mobile wallet or the linked savings account with the Central Bank of India.
After several unsuccessful attempts, Paytm offered the informant a temporary credit limit of INR 60,000 to cover the payment, which was subsequently reduced by the fare amount. Following this, the informant noticed that Paytm displayed Aditya Birla Finance as the lender, even though no loan agreement or consent was given by him. The informant claimed that Paytm falsely indicated insufficient balance and coerced him into using a postpaid loan facility.
The informant regularly settled Paytm Postpaid dues, but later received calls from Aditya Birla Finance regarding a supposed loan, despite never having taken out such a loan and asking Aditya Birla Finance to liaise with Paytm directly.
Feeling aggrieved, the informant filed a complaint with the CCI, alleging that Paytm’s exclusive arrangement with Aditya Birla Finance constituted anti-competitive behavior, restricting consumer choice and competition. The complaint suggested that Paytm, as a major player in digital payments, abused its dominant position to force the informant into an unwanted financial arrangement.
CCI’s Observations:
The CCI found that the issues raised were individual and contractual, pertaining to allegations of misrepresentation, mis-selling, or service deficiencies, rather than competitive practices. The Commission noted that no evidence was presented to show a violation of the Competition Act, 2002 by the parties involved. Consequently, the CCI concluded that the disputes did not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed the case.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676