PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 117/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Binod Kumar Panda, aged about 50 years,

S/O- Late Mani Ranjan,

R/O-MOdipara, Near Siva Temple, Ps-Town,

Tahl/Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                 ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. National Highway Authority of India,

At-Brooks Hill, PO/PS-Dhanupali, Tahl/Dist-Sambalpur.

2. Ashoka Sambalpur-Bargarh Toll Way Ltd.

At-Barhaguda, PO/Ps/Dist-Bargarh.

3. Collector, Sambalpur

At-Collectorate Building Sambalpur,

4. Collector, Bargarh

At/Po/Ps-Bargarh.                                                          ....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. D.Hota & Associates
2. For the O.P.No.1                :- Sri. A.Pattanaik & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2                :- Sri.P.K.Jena & Associates
4. For the No.3 & 4                :-Ex-parte

Date of Filing:02.04.2024,  Date of Hearing :24.06.2024,  Date of Judgement :20.08.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant was coming back to Sambalpur with his car no. OD-15P-9213 on 18.03.2024. The Complainant came to know that there was no balance in his fasttag and the O.P. No.2 deducted a sum of Rs. 310/- manually vide receipt No. 80447877 dated 18.03.2024. Although tool fees is Rs. 155/- the O.P.No.2 charged double amount in the tool gate and issued receipt of Rs. 155/- x 2. At about 4.11PM the Complainant received a message to recharge the fasttag and the Complainant recharged the fast-tag for the vehicle for Rs. 500/- of ICICI Bank.

After recharge the O.P.NO.2 again deducted Rs. 178.12P. From fast-tag account. Twice charges were made which is illegal and arbitrary in place of Rs. 155/- the O.P.No.2 deducted Rs. 480/-.

Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P.No.1 in reply submitted that the O.P.No.2 is the concessionaire. The O.P.No.1 after concession agreement no way connected with the collection of tool fees. The O.P.No.1 is the supervising authority of O.P.No.2. The project/concession is for 30 years. All risks relating to project shall be borne by the concessionaire. O.P. No.1 is not a proper party nor a necessary party. The present complaint is pre-mature as remedy is available under N.H. fees Rules, 2008. There is no any deficiency in service of O.P. No.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The O.P. No.2 in reply submitted that the vehicle of the Complainant crossed the tool plaza at about 16:11:41PM on 18.03.2024. On approaching the tool gate at Barhagoda in lane No.8 the Complainant got a message by cross read from lane No.7 regarding deduction of Rs. 155/- at 16:11:41 from his fast-tag account. This fact has been suppressed. Instead the Complainant deposited Rs. 310/- in the toll gate for shortage in his fast tag account. Complainant thereafter deposited Rs. 500/- in ICICI Bank fast-tag link with vehicle No. OD-15P-9213 at 16:55:54 PM. on 18.03.2024 showing balance of Rs. 410.88P. The system RFID involves auto deduction of the Bar code in the fast tag account and there was no scope for O.P. to know such fact. Misread from lane No.7 to the vehicle of Complainant at lane No.8 is a technical error and O.P.No.2 has no scope to rectify the same immediately. The O.P. is ready to refund Rs. 310/- to the Complainant.

Under Rule 13 of N.H.W. fees Rules, 2008 there was scope for the Complainant to make grievance. Deduction of Rs. 178.12P from fast-tag account is not know to the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.3 & 4 being district head can check the illegal and unfair practice of the O.P.No.2. There is no any deficiency on the part of answering O.P.

4. The O.P.No.3 & 4 have been set ex-parte.
5. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. From ticket No. 80447877 dated 18.03.2024 issued By O.P.No.2 it reveals that Rs. 310/- has been charged by O.P.No.2 for the vehicle No. OD-15P-9213. Further the text message at 16.11.41 shows balance in fast tag account Rs. 89/-. Recharge message of Rs. 500/-, deduction of Rs. 155/- was made. Total the Complainant has paid Rs. 310/- +Rs. 155/- - Rs. 465/- for his single journey from Bargarh to Sambalpur crossing the tool gate.

Perused the back image of the vehicle at 16:13:52 and Tr. No. 80447877 for the vehicle No. OD-15P-9213. The O.P.No.2 admitted the receipt of Rs. 310/-+Rs. 155/- from Complainant on 18.03.2024.

For single entry to the gate the O.P.No.2 was to charge Rs. 155/- but instead charged Rs. 155/- x 2 =Rs. 310/- which is illegal and unfair in trade practice. Later on the O.P. No.2 charged through the fast tag for Rs. 155/-. Charging double the price of entry fees is unfair and the O.P.No.2 admitted the fact. The O.P.No.2 showing technical error is not acceptable as the Complainant has suffered and sustained financial loss. So deficiency in service against O.P.No.2 is established and it amounts to unfair trade practice in business transaction.

6. The O.P.No.1 stated that the authority is the Supervising authority of O.P.No.2 and concession has been granted for 30 years. Excess pricing from Consumer proves the lack of supervision of the O.P.No.1. No doubt total responsibility goes to O.P.No.2 but supervision role of O.P.No.1 can not be ignored. Accordingly, the O.P.No.1 is equally liable with the O.P.No.2.
7. Relating to jurisdiction of this Commission, there is no bar under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to initiate proceeding, relating to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The provision of sec. 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is clear in this regard. In addition to grievance handing mechanism under the N.H.W. Rules, 2008 this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the case and there is no any Bar.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case following order is passed:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed against O.P.No.1 & 2 on contest. The O.P. No.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 310/- with 7% interest P.A. w.e.f. 18.03.2024 within one month of this order. In-case of non-payment the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realisation. For lack of Supervision the O.P.No.1 is directed to ensure that in future the O.P.No.2 shall not collect excess price/fees from the Consumer. For deficiency in service the O.P.No.1 & 2 shall pay Rs. 25,000/- compensation each to the Complainant. The O.P.No.3 & 4 are directed to see that in future the O.P.No.1 & 2 are not harassing the consumers and involved in unfair trade practices.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20^th day of August, 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.