Case Law Details
Tallada Dilip Kumar Vs Shriram City Union Finance Limited (Competition Commission of India)
The OP is stated to be a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as well as with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and has been engaged in the business of lending money to the public and collecting deposits. The Informant is stated to be a consumer under Section 2(f) (ii) of the Act.
The Informant has alleged that the OP is charging higher interest rates using illegal methods of EMI calculation without borrowers’ knowledge under the guise of agreement entered into between the parties, for which RBI has no regulation of rate of interest charged except to investigate the fraud.
The Informant has further alleged that the OP has not supplied him with the loan account statements and copies of two aforementioned loans agreements availed to cross-check the EMI fixed by the OP. Moreover, the Informant has alleged that he is unaware of the exact rate of interest charged from him in respect of the two loans availed.
The Commission notes that the Informant has not specified any provision of the Act which has been allegedly violated by the OP. The Commission observes that an examination of allegations from the perspective of Section 4 of the Act requires the delineation of the relevant market and the establishment of dominance of the enterprise in the relevant market so defined.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
