Order Name: Ayudhya Foundation vs Talk Charge Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) recently made a ruling on a case involving Talk Charge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The case was filed by the Ayudhya Foundation, who accused Talk Charge of abusing its dominant position in the market of digital payment platforms in India. However, the CCI dismissed these allegations and closed the case.
The crux of the dispute revolved around Talk Charge, an online platform offering services like mobile recharges, DTH services, data card recharges, and utility bill payments. They operate a cashback system called “TC Cashback,” where users earn cashback on transactions that get credited to their digital wallet.
The Ayudhya Foundation claimed that since September 2023, Talk Charge started implementing an additional 20% surcharge on the use of funds deposited in its digital wallet. They alleged that Talk Charge failed to provide complete details of these charges and did not fully disclose the surcharge amount in the GST bill.
Moreover, Talk Charge’s digital wallet operates as a closed system. This means that the wallet balance, including cashback, can only be used within the Talk Charge app. The Ayudhya Foundation contended that this restriction violated the Competition Act, 2002. So, they took their grievance to the CCI.
The CCI looked into the complaint carefully, focusing on the additional fees imposed by Talk Charge and the lack of full disclosure in the GST bill. As the Ayudhya Foundation did not specify any particular violation of the Competition Act, the CCI inferred that the concerns raised fell under Section 4 of the Act, which addresses abuse of dominance.
To thoroughly examine the case under Section 4, it was vital for the CCI to define the relevant market in terms of product and geography and assess Talk Charge’s dominance in this market. The Ayudhya Foundation had not defined any such market, but the CCI identified it as “the market for digital payment platforms in India,” based on the information available.
The Commission found that this market has several service providers, both domestic and international, creating a competitive atmosphere. It was also observed that the Ayudhya Foundation was not solely reliant on Talk Charge, and there was no substantial evidence of Talk Charge’s dominance in the market.
As a result, the CCI concluded that there was no ground to investigate the allegations of abusive conduct under the Competition Act due to the lack of dominance from Talk Charge. The case was thus closed, and the Ayudhya Foundation’s request for relief was also turned down.
In a nutshell, this case highlights the importance of providing complete evidence and defining the relevant market when filing a complaint under the Competition Act. It also underscores the significance of market competition in determining an entity’s dominance and potential for abuse of power.
