Issues Raised By Informant Are Individual In Nature, CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Paytm Parent Company

The informant alleged in the complaint that Paytm had entered into an agreement with Aditya Birla Finance to compel users to use their services through anti-competitive measures.

Background Facts

The Informant mentioned that he is using Paytm's (OP-1) payment services for many years, including its mobile wallet and UPI ID. In April 2022, while using the Uber app in Gurugram, the Informant set Paytm as the payment option. Despite having sufficient balance, Paytm failed to process the fare payment from either the mobile wallet or the linked savings account with the Central Bank of India (OP-4).

After several attempts, Paytm prompted the Informant to allow it to make payments up to a limit of INR 60,000 and recover the amount later. The Informant agreed, and Paytm then showed a post-paid limit reduced by the cab fare amount.

After some transactions, Paytm displayed Aditya Birla Finance (OP-2) as the lender, although no loan terms or consent had been provided to the Informant. The Informant alleges that Paytm falsely indicated an insufficient balance and forced him to use a postpaid loan facility.

The Informant regularly paid the Paytm Postpaid dues. Subsequently, he received calls from Aditya Birla Finance regarding the recovery of a purported loan, despite his insistence that he had never taken a loan from them and had asked them to contact Paytm instead.

Feeling aggrieved, the Informant filed a complaint before the commission, contending that Paytm entered into an exclusive arrangement with Aditya Birla Finance, using anti-competitive practices to compel consumers to use their services. This agreement limits consumer choice and competition in the market. Paytm, as a dominant player in digital payments, allegedly abused its position by forcing the Informant into a transaction with Aditya Birla Finance without his knowledge or consent.

Observation by Commission

The Commission observed that the disputes raised by the informant are individual and contractual issues related to alleged misrepresentation, mis-selling, or deficiencies in service against the opposite parties, and do not involve any matters requiring the Commission's attention.

The Commission also noted that the informant did not provide any evidence to prove a violation of the Competition Act, 2002 by the opposite parties. The Commission held that these disputes do not fall under the scope of the Competition Act. Therefore, the Commission dismissed the case against the opposite parties.

Case – Col. Arvind Kumar Versus One97 Communications Ltd. & others

Citation - Case No. 13 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order