The Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued an order on 7 July 2025 in Case No. 04 of 2025. In that order the CCI disposed of an information submitted under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act 2002 by an MSME operator described as the Informant. The respondents were Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited identified as OP-1 and Central Bank of India identified as OP-2. The Informant alleged two main legal wrongs. First that OP-1 had abused a dominant position in breach of Section 4 of the Act. Second that there was a tie in arrangement amounting to a vertical restraint under Section 3(4). The Informant also asked the CCI to open a formal investigation under Section 26(1) and sought interim relief under Section 33.
Factual background
The Informant ran a precision engineering MSME unit in Chennai and had taken a term loan and an overdraft facility from Central Bank of India OP-2. The loan facilities were covered by two insurance policies issued by OP-1 with a combined insured sum of ₹4.38 crore. After the Chennai floods in 2015 the Informant’s unit suffered heavy damage. The insurance claim was submitted 62 days after the prescribed period. The Informant explained the delay by saying it took time to obtain policy documents from both OP-1 and OP-2. OP-1 rejected the claim, relying on the delay and the insurer’s claim filing time limits. The Informant contended that OP-1, as a dominant insurer in the Chennai general insurance market, acted together with OP-2 to deny a valid claim.
Questions Before CCI
The CCCI focused on three questions. First whether the information was time barred under the proviso to Section 19(1) read with Regulation 10 of the CCI General Regulations 2024. Second whether OP-1 held a dominant position in the relevant market and, if so, whether it had abused that dominance contrary to Section 4. Third whether the alleged tie in arrangement between OP-1 and OP-2 amounted to a violation of Section 3(4) by producing an appreciable adverse effect on competition often referred to as AAEC.
Findings of CCI
1. Limitation and condonation
The Commission noted that the cause of action dated back to December 2015 while the information was filed in 2025. That filing fell well beyond the three year limitation period set by the first proviso to Section 19(1). The Informant asked the CCI to condone the delay on grounds of ill health and financial distress, but the Commission rejected that plea. The CCI held that the Informant had not shown the kind of sufficient cause required under the second proviso to Section 19(1).
2. Dominance and abuse
On the question of dominance the CCI observed that the general insurance market in India comprises many significant players including LIC, HDFC Life, SBI Life and ICICI Prudential among others. Finding that OP-1 was not dominant in the alleged relevant market the Commission concluded that Section 4, which deals with abuse of dominant position, did not apply.
3. Tie in arrangement
The CCI found no evidence that the conduct had foreclosed competition or caused an appreciable adverse effect on competition. For that reason the allegations under Section 3(4) were dismissed at the threshold.
4. Interim relief
Because the Commission did not proceed to a formal investigation under Section 26 the interim relief sought under Section 33 became moot and was not granted.
Key Legal Aspects of the CCI Order
The order restates several established principles. First that complaints under the Competition Act must normally be filed within three years from the date the cause of action arose and that courts or regulators may only condone delays where strict proof of sufficient cause is provided. Second that dominance is not established by size or reputation alone and must be assessed with reference to market structure competitors and entry barriers as contemplated by Section 19(4). Third that tie in arrangements are not automatically illegal and must be tested for an appreciable adverse effect on competition as required by Section 19(3).
Practical takeaways for businesses
For banks and insurers the decision underscores the need for clear transparent disclosure of policy terms and timelines so that disputes over claim timeliness are less likely. For MSMEs it underlines the importance of keeping digital copies of insurance documents and filing claims within the insurer’s prescribed timelines to reduce the risk of repudiation. For compliance teams the case is a reminder to review bancassurance and similar arrangements to ensure they comply with Section 3(4) and with IRDAI guidance.
Conclusion
In short the CCI’s decision emphasizes timely action and the need to back up competition complaints with convincing evidence. The Informant retains alternative routes such as consumer forums or approaches to the IRDAI but competition law intervention was declined because the complaint was filed after the statutory limitation period and because there was no finding of dominance or of a tie in arrangement causing an appreciable adverse effect on competition.
CCI Order dated 07/07/2025 (Case No. 04 of 2025)