Haryana

Ambala

CC/35/2022

Manoj Kumar Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel Store Fastag Service - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	35 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	03.02.2022
Date of decision	:	01.05.2023

MANOJ KUMAR SAINI S/O SADHU RAM, Resident of House No.-151-P, Sector-10, Ambala City, Distt. Ambala (Haryana).

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. AIRTEL STORE FASTAG SERVICE. Ward No-7, Manali House, Prem Nagar, Old Delhi Road, Below Burn GYM, Ambala-134003 (Through its Manager of Airtel Store)
2. National Highways Authority of India, Bay No-35-38, 1st Floor, Panchkula, Sector-4, Panchkula-134112. (Through its M.D).

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Aman Bawa, Advocate, counsel for the Complainant.

                   OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 31.03.2022.

                   Shri J.S. Rathore, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.                 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to:-

(a) To Deactive Fastag Airtel urgently and refund an amount of Rs.1134/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and allow to purchase the other company Fastag.

(b) To refund Rs.1390.00 /- paid by the complainant at different Toll Palaza

 (c) To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental & physical harassment as well as monetary loss caused to the complainant. To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation charges

                                                OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is using Fastag of Airtel company with his vehicle Car bearing Regd No HR01AT 0183. The said fastag wallet and account fell dormant as it was not in use from long time. As such, the complainant contacted OP No.1 on 13 Jan 2022 through email in the matter. On 14.01.2022, OP No.1 sent reply to the complaint that his complaint has already been registered with reference no 13937826 and customer care representative will get in touch with him within 24 hours.  On 14 Jan 2022 at 22:32 the complainant received another email from OP No.1 that it is unable to resolve the query in the absence of complete and valid details, and requested the complainant  to share 10 digits Airtel Money Wallet/Airtel Payments Bank Savings account. On 16 Jan 2022 at 10:16 hrs an email was received from the OP No.1 that it shall respond to the complainant with an update within two working days, and asked for his Airtel money wallet number 9818652588, which was provided by the complainant but to no avail. Thereafter, number of emails were exchanged between the parties in the matter, however, every time, except bald assurances nothing was done by OP No.1. On 19 Jan 2022 at 12:42 hrs the complainant received email from OP No.1 in which it was mentioned that as per our telephonic conversation on 19 Jan 2022 at 12:38 PM authentication was successful, and we request the complainant to cut the TAG in 2 pieces and send us a snapshot, showing the barcode. The complainant sent the said TAG in pieces and received post successful receipt from OP No.1 upon which OP No.1 promised that the TAG will be de-activated in 2 working days. However, thereafter neither the TAG was disconnected nor amount paid was refunded to the complainant.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.03.2022.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and real facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant in the present complaint has claimed relief only from OP No.1, regarding the dormant fastag wallet. The complainant has not sought any relief from OP No.2. The complainant has unnecessarily dragged OP No.2 into the present complaint in a hasty manner. The complainant in the present complaint has mentioned that he had contacted and interacted with the OP No. 1- Airtel Fastag Service several times through e-mail as well as through telephone calls regarding the issue of fastag. The complainant is claiming monetary reliefs only from the OP No.1 only and not from OP No.2.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint against it.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-W1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-36 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 on 22.02.2023 stated that the written version filed on behalf of OP No.2 be read as evidence on its behalf.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither deactivating the fastag in question nor refunding the amount paid under the same despite the fact that each and every step was taken by the complainant, the OPs are deficient in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 stated that sale consideration if any towards the fast tag is admittedly paid by the complainant to OP No.1 and also at the same time, it was OP No.1 only which was to deactivate the fastag in question and refund the amount paid by the complainant and there is not an iota of evidence that there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2, as such, complaint against OP No.2 deserves to be dismissed.
9.           It is evident from the emails dated 13.01.2022 Annexure C-1 to 19.01.2022, Annexure C-10 that lot of requests were made by the complainant to  OP No.1 to the effect that since long time, his fastag wallet and account is dormat as the same was not in use by him, as such, the same be either activated or in the alternative to deactivate the same and refund the  balance amount kept therein. It is also coming out the contents of email dated 19.01.2022, Annexure C-11 that ultimately OP No.1 informed the complainant that his authentication in the matter is successful and as such, he was asked to cut the TAG in 2 pieces and send them a snapshot through email at wecare@airtelbank.com, whereafter his TAG will be deactivated in 2 working days. It is further coming out from the record that on 19.01.2022 itself, the complainant sent email alongwith snapshots of the TAG after cutting the same into 2 pieces. Thereafter, when still his fastag was not deactivated and the amount was not refunded to the complainant, he again sent emails dated 21.02.2022, Annexure C-12 and C-13 to OP No.1 in the matter but to no avail. The complainant has also placed on record the toll tax slips Annexure C-14 to C-27 showing that in the absence of taking any action on the part of OP No.1 qua the fastag in question, he was forced to pay penalty alongwith actual toll tax. It is significant to mention here that, as stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OP No.1 seeking its version, yet, nobody appeared on its behalf, despite service,  as a result whereof, it was  proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.03.2022. This act of OP No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of OP No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant went unrebutted & uncontroverted. Facing with this situation, we are of the considered opinion that by  neither reactivating the fastag in question nor deactivating the same nor refunding the amount kept under the same, despite the fact that each and every step had been taken by the complainant, as directed to him by OP No.1 in the matter, the complainant has been caused a lot of mental agony and harassment, which act  amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OP  No.1.
10.           As far as OP No.2 is concerned, it may be stated here that because the dispute in question raised by the complainant is only with regard to fastag, issued by OP No.1 and on the other hand, OP No.2 has no concern with the same, as such, the complaint filed against the OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it, in the following manner:- 
    1. To deactivate the fastag in question and refund the amount of Rs.1,134/- retained thereunder to the complainant.
    2. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.1 shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 01.05.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President