9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, no material has been provided by the Informant to indicate violation of any provision of the Act. The nature of disputes raised in the matter do not fall under the ambit of the Act and for redressal of the said grievances, remedy(ies), if any, may lie before an appropriate forum, in accordance with law. The Commission is of the considered view that no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of the Act is made out against any of the OPs in the present matter and decides to close the matter forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. - MS. RAVNEET KAUR CHAIRPERSON, MR. ANIL AGRAWAL MEMBER, MS. SWETA KAKKAD MEMBER AND MR. DEEPAK ANURAG MEMBER Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformant earlier and he had never consented to enter into any agreement or arrangement with OP-2. It is alleged by the Informant that OP-1 arbitrarily displayed insufficient balance and forced him to pay via OP-2 postpaid loan facility through OP-1 s app. The Informant kept on paying the Paytm Postpaid dues regularly whenever it was displayed. 4. It is stated that after some time, the Informant started getting calls over phone from OP-2 regarding recovery of purported outstanding loan amount including the principal amount and interest amount with warning that otherwise services to the Informant would be stopped. The Informant told OP-2 representatives not to call him as he had never availed loan from their company and to approach OP-1 in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation. 7. It is further stated that OP-1 was not authorised to make payments to OP-3 via its app from his account with OP-4. On 23.04.2023 the Informant received a text from OP-1 that an amount of INR 3300/- will be deducted from his account with OP-4. As OP-1 has created no facility for distress call to connect with customer care by chat, SMS or phone call, the Informant sent an email on 23.04.2023 to OP-4 to stop any payment to OP-3 on any account. It is alleged that money from Informant s account with OP-4 was deducted on 25.04.2023 via OP-1 s app for a payment to be made to OP-3 despite instructions by the Informant to OP-4 to stop payments from his saving bank account with it to OP-3 for any bill. 8. Based on the above averments, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n(s), and, iv. against OP-4: not stopping payment from savings bank account despite instructions by the Informant to stop payment through OP-1 regarding any bill of OP-3. 12. From the facts of the present case, the Commission observes that alleged disparate disputes raised in the Information appear to be individual/contractual disputes regarding alleged mis-representation/ mis-selling/ deficiency in service against various OPs and do not involve competition concerns as such. Further, no material has been provided by the Informant to indicate violation of any provision of the Act. 13. Accordingly, the nature of disputes raised in the matter do not fall under the ambit of the Act and for redressal of the said grievances, remedy(ies), if any, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
