Presence of Several Other Players in the Market of ‘Digital Payment Platform’ Rules Out Abuse of Dominance by OP | CCI

Case Details: Ayudha Foundation v. Talk Charge Technologies (P.) Ltd. - [2024] 159 taxmann.com 673 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ms Ravneet Kaur | Chairperson, Anil Agrawal, Ms Sweta Kakkad & Deepak Anurag Member

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the informant foundation filed instant information u/s 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against respondent company/OP which provided a range of services to users enabling them online recharges for mobile phones, settling utility bills and other services.

The informant submitted that it was availing digital wallet service of OP and was benefited from the cashback services of the company, however, OP started imposing additional charges on using the deposited amount in its digital wallet, which allegedly amounts to abuse of dominance by OP.

Further, the informant alleged that there was a limit on paying bills through the app of OP which prevented the informant from spending an additional amount in the wallet and such restriction was in violation of the Act, which allegedly amounts to abuse of dominance by OP.

CCI Held

The CCI observed that as regards the determination of the relevant market, it was noted that the informant has not delineated any relevant market in the Information. However, on perusal of the Information and information available in the public domain, the CCI delineates the relevant market as ‘the market for digital payment platforms in India’.

The CCI, further observed that there were several players operating in the ‘market for digital payment platforms in India which include several domestic and global players. In such a structure of the market, the Informant does not seem to be dependent on the OP.

The CCI also noted that the informant had not provided any evidence of OP being dominant. In the absence of the dominance of the OP in the relevant market, there was no occasion to examine the allegation of abusive conduct against it under the provisions of section 4 of the Act.

The CCI held that no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act was made out against the OP for causing an investigation into the matter. Therefore, the matter was ordered to be closed forthwith u/s 26(2) of the Competition Act. Consequently, no case for grant of relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arose and the prayer for the same also stands rejected.