Presence of other NBFCs in relevant market rules out abuse of dominant position by an OP: CCI

Case Details: Tallada Dilip Kumar v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd - [2022] 139 taxmann.com 601 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ashok Kumar Gupta, Chairperson
  • Ms. Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi, Member

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, information was filed by Mr. Tallada Dilip Kumar (Informant) under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against Shriram City Union Finance Limited (OP) alleging contravention of provisions of the Act.

As per the Information, the Informant’s wife entered a sample loan amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- at an interest rate of 15% for 60 months on the EMI calculator available on the OP’s website. To the Informant’s dismay, the EMI calculator on the OP’s website allegedly showed a wrong EMI of Rs. 66,670/- per month, which ought to have been Rs. 23,790/- per month as per the RBI EMI calculation. After the Informant’s wife raised the issue with the OP on 30-6-2020, it rectified the said discrepancy on the EMI calculator on its website to Rs. 29,170/- for the aforesaid amount and loan tenure.

The Informant had averred that the Informant’s wife requested the OP to conduct an inquiry into the aforementioned EMI miscalculations; however, the OP had not replied to the same to date. The Informant then complained to RBI about the said conduct of the OP.

As per the Informant, the OP replied to the RBI stating ‘technical glitch’ as the reason for the miscalculations of the EMIs on its calculator and that the same had been rectified by it. The Informant and his wife were not satisfied with this answer of the OP to the RBI and further complained to the 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.

CCI Held

The Commission was of the prima facie view that the OP does not appear to hold any market power in respect of its activities, thereby allowing it to operate independently of many other entities offering similar services, of the provision of various types of loans to consumers. There was nothing to indicate any change in position as regards the market power of OP since the passing of the earlier order. Consequently, the Commission refrains from commenting in any manner on the allegations of abuse as contained in the Information.

Thus, prima facie, no competition concern was observed in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and therefore, the matter was closed forthwith under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for a grant for relief(s) as sought under section 33 of the Act arose, and the same was also rejected.

Case Review

• • Sampathrao Sudhakar v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 241 (CCI) (para 19) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Sampathrao Sudhakar v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 241 (CCI) (para 18).