Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    A.Ram Babu and Indian Bank, Zonal Office, New Delhi & Another

    Uploaded by

    Sachika Vij

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    A.Ram Babu and Indian Bank, Zonal Office, New Delhi & Another

    Uploaded by

    Sachika Vij
    4 views4 pages

    Original Title

    A.Ram Babu And Indian Bank, Zonal Office, New Delhi & Another

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views4 pages

    A.Ram Babu and Indian Bank, Zonal Office, New Delhi & Another

    Uploaded by

    Sachika Vij

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

    CASE NO. 21 OF 2023

    In re:
    A.Ram Babu Informant
    V-10/11 FF, Lord Krishna Residency
    BPTP Elite Floors,
    Sec- 76, Faridabad, Haryana
    And

    Indian Bank
    Zonal Office Opposite Party No. 1
    17 Parliament Street
    New Delhi-110001

    Reserve Bank of India


    6, Sansad Marg Opposite Party No. 2
    New Delhi-110001

    CORAM:
    Ms. Ravneet Kaur
    Chairperson

    Mr. Anil Agrawal


    Member

    Ms. Sweta Kakkad


    Member

    Mr. Deepak Anurag


    Member

    Case No 21 of 2023 Page 1 of 4


    Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

    1. The present Information has been filed by Mr. A. Ram Babu (“Informant”) under
    Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’) against Indian Bank (“OP-
    1”) alleging violation of the provisions of Section 4(2) (a) and Section 4(2) (b) of the
    Act. Pertinently, the Informant has also arrayed the Reserve Bank of India as Opposite
    Party No. 2 (“RBI/OP-2”), however, no allegation has been raised against RBI.

    2. Indian Bank is an Indian public sector bank having its headquarter in Chennai and
    branches spread across the country, one of them being OP-1 (Zonal Office). The
    Informant has stated in the information that he had two Fixed Deposit Accounts with
    OP-1 for a period of one year on which interest accrued on a monthly and quarterly
    basis, respectively.

    3. It has been submitted that due to certain changes in RBI’s policy, other banks were
    offering higher interest rates than OP-1 pursuant to which he decided to withdraw the
    two FDs from the current bank (OP-1) with the objective of opening the Fixed Deposit
    accounts with another bank. He further submitted that he also prematurely withdrew his
    fixed deposit account with the Indian Overseas Bank which has imposed no penalty on
    the Informant whereas, on such premature withdrawal from the Indian Bank (OP-1), it
    has imposed a penalty of INR 27951/- (Rs. Twenty-seven thousand nine hundred and
    fifty-one only) and INR 22500/- (Rs. Twenty-two thousand and five hundred only)
    respectively, on the principal amounts of the two accounts on 21.12.2022. The
    Informant has submitted that it had approached the bank ombudsman vide ticket no.
    10574018 raising his grievances, however, the complaint was closed on 12.01.2023
    without any redressal.

    4. Consequently, it has been alleged that the practice of Indian Bank is unfair and
    discriminatory and it has misused its position in the market to obtain money from the
    informant. The Informant has alleged that, in light of the abovementioned facts and
    circumstances, Indian Bank has violated provisions of Section 4 of the Act. The
    Informant has also sought interim relief under Section 33 of the Act that OP-1 may be
    directed to return the penalty deducted from the account of the Informant.

    Case No 21 of 2023 Page 2 of 4


    5. From the perusal of the information and material available on record, the Commission
    notes that the Informant is primarily aggrieved by the penalty imposed by the Indian
    Bank on the principal amounts of the two fixed deposit accounts of the Informant on
    the premature withdrawal of the same. The Informant has alleged that this conduct of
    Indian Bank is in violation of Section 4 of the Act.

    6. The Commission notes that the ‘dominant position’ as defined under the Explanation to
    Section 4(2) of the Act means a position of strength that allows an entity to operate
    independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market or affect its
    competitors or consumers in its favour. For examining allegations pertaining to Section
    4 of the Act, the delineation of the relevant market is essential to ascertain dominance
    therein and thereafter, the alleged conduct of the Indian Bank in the said relevant market
    can be examined.

    7. As noted above, the Informant’s grievance arises out of the two fixed deposit accounts
    with the Indian Bank and the penalty imposed on the principal sum on premature
    withdrawal. A Fixed Deposit is a tenured deposit account provided by banks and other
    financial institutions which ordinarily provides higher rate of interest than a regular
    savings account. In a Fixed Deposit Account, the sum of money or the deposit is locked
    for a fixed period of term. Once the term comes to maturity, the account
    holder/depositor receives the invested principal sum along with interest. Therefore they
    are also called term deposits because they are kept up to a particular term.

    8. The Commission observes that the Informant has not delineated any relevant market in
    the Information. The decisional practice of the Commission in dealing with cases
    relating to Non-Banking Financial Companies /Banks is to define the relevant market
    on the basis of the product in question. In the present case, the deposit under
    consideration is a term deposit, which is a distinct product from other types of deposits,
    in terms of maturity, interest, liquidity etc. Accordingly, in the present case, the relevant
    market may be defined as the market for the provision of term deposit services.

    Case No 21 of 2023 Page 3 of 4


    9. As regards, the relevant geographic market, the Commission notes that there exists no
    distinction between one region and another with reference to providing term deposit services
    within India. Thus, the relevant market, in this case, appears to be the “market for the
    provision of term deposit services in India”.

    10. Further the Commission notes that there are several players operating in the market for
    the provision of term deposit services in India which include public sector banks, private
    sector banks, post-offices, and other non-banking financial companies. Furthermore, the
    Informant has not provided any evidence of Indian Bank being dominant. In the absence
    of the dominance of Indian Bank in the relevant market, there is no occasion to examine
    the allegation of abusive conduct against OP-1 under the provisions of the Act.

    11. In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no case of
    contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against OPs for causing
    an investigation into the matter, and therefore, the matter is ordered to be closed
    forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of relief(s) as
    sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the prayer for the same also stands
    rejected.

    12. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the Informant accordingly.

    Sd/-
    (Ravneet Kaur)
    Chairperson

    Sd/-
    (Anil Agrawal)
    Member

    Sd/-
    (Sweta Kakkad)
    Member

    Sd/-
    (Deepak Anurag)
    Member
    New Delhi
    Date: 30.11.2023

    Case No 21 of 2023 Page 4 of 4

    You might also like