Several Other Competitors In Relevant Market And Lack Of Informant's Dependence, CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Talk Charge Technologies

Brief Facts:

Ayudhya Foundation (“Informant”) alleged that Talk Charge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (“Opposite Party”), an internet-based platform offering various services such as mobile phone recharges, DTH services, data card recharges, and bill payments for utilities, was engaging in the abuse of its dominant position. The Opposite Party operated a cashback system where users earned cashback, referred to as "TC Cashback," on transactions, which was then credited to their digital wallet. However, the Informant asserted that since September 2023, the Opposite Party had begun imposing an additional 20% surcharge on the use of funds deposited in its digital wallet, without providing complete details of these charges. The Informant further alleged that when requested, the Opposite Party failed to provide complete details of the surcharge amount in the GST bill.

Additionally, the Opposite Party claimed that its digital wallet operates as a closed system, meaning that funds deposited, and cashback earned can only be used within the Talk Charge app. As per the Informant, these limitations to use the wallet balance stood in violation of the Competition Act, 2002.

Therefore, the Informant approached the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 and sought appropriate relief from the CCI along with interim relief under Section 33 of the Competition Act by way of a financial sanction.

Observation of the Commission:

The CCI observed that the complaint primarily revolved around the imposition of additional fees by the Opposite Party without complete disclosure, particularly in the GST bill. While the Informant had not explicitly cited any specific violation of the Competition Act, it appeared that the concerns raised fell under the purview of Section 4 of the Competition Act, which deals with abuse of dominance.

The CCI held that to proceed with the analysis under Section 4 of the Competition Act, it was essential to define the relevant market, encompassing both the relevant product and geographic markets, and evaluate the Opposite Party's dominance within this market. However, the Complainant failed to specify any relevant market. Despite this, the CCI delineated the relevant market as "the market for digital payment platforms in India" based on the available information. It was noted that within this market, there were numerous players, both domestic and global, indicating a competitive landscape. Additionally, the Informant did not appear to be dependent solely on the Opposite Party, and there was a lack of evidence demonstrating the Opposite Party's dominance.

In the absence of the Opposite Party's dominance in the relevant market, the CCI concluded that there was no basis to investigate allegations of abusive conduct under the Competition Act. Consequently, the matter was ordered to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act. Therefore, the request for relief under Section 33 of the Competition Act was also rejected.