BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 81 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 06.02.2020.
Date of Decision : 22.11.2023.
Aman Wadhwa aged about 22 years son of Shri Om Parkash Wadhwa, resident of H. No. 156, Gali No.2, Gandhi Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1.Axis Bank Limited, Customer Care Fast Tag, Head Office at Corporate Center, Worli Mumbai through its authorized person.
2. Bhavdin Toll Plaza, Near Ding Mor Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………….MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant purchased a Fast Tag for his vehicle No. HR-24Q/4577 vide registered mobile number 92544-44228 from Axis Bank which charged Rs.200/- for security purpose. That on 24th December, 2019 when the complainant was returning from Ganganagar to his home then on a toll plaza his fast tag did not work and on contacting to the fast tag support no one picked his phone call for a long time and finally Sanjay (customer care employee) attended him after a wait of 30 months but gave no satisfactory answer. He also refused to transfer or connect him with his superior or other responsible person and then finally complainant launched a complaint no. 100091090 for not working of his fast tag on toll plaza. That in the same manner again on 08th January, 2020 the complainant went to Fatehabad to his relatives in his above mentioned vehicle and when the complainant reached to the op no.2 (Toll Plaza) then the employee of op no.2 told him that his fast tag account status is showing blacklisted due to insufficient fund whereas the complainant had Rs.250/- besides amount of security of Rs.200/- as per account statement which the complainant also showed to the attendant of op no.2 but he did not pay any heed on the genuine request of complainant. At that time the complainant duly clicked the snap shot of the said screen at 09.09 p.m. on 08.01.2020. After that complainant tried to contact with op no.1 by telephone, but about an hour no one picked his call and finally the complainant paid Rs.90/- in cash for both side (round trip). It is further averred that on the same day when the complainant was returning from Fatehabad to Sirsa and reached to op no.2 he showed the cash slip of toll plaza and passed the toll but after 15-20 minutes he received a message of deduction of Rs.60/- through his fast tag account which gave great mental tension to the complainant because if the complainant had no sufficient balance to pass the toll plaza in the day time and the online record of op no.1 shown blacklisted him due to insufficient balance then how the deduction was made. The complainant contacted to op no.1 through internet and told them entire story and received a message from op no.1 and in reply they have noted down his case with transaction ID No. 100511637, but till today neither he received any amount nor any phone call on behalf of op no.1. That on one hand the op no.1 promised the complainant to provide best services and on the other hand the op no.1 deducted the amount illegally and forcefully from the account of complainant and also forced him to feel the shame by showing the blacklisted status while the amount existed in his account. It is further averred that in the rules and regulation list the op no.1 did not mention anywhere that he has to maintain extra Rs.200/- other than security amount. That in this way the ops have indulged themselves in malpractices and they have caused deficiency in services and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to make the payment of the amount wrongly deducted from the fast tag account of complainant, to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that amount of Rs.60/- was rightly paid to op no.2 by answering op and that complainant leveled false and baseless allegations against answering op. The answering op has provided proper service to the complainant. All other contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. OP no.2 did not appear despite delivery of notice sent through registered cover and as such op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Rai, Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1.
7. We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. From the wallet statement of Fast Tag Ex.C5, it is evident that on the day of journey i.e. on 08.01.2020 when the complainant was going to Fatehabad in his vehicle bearing registration NO. HR-24Q/4577, the complainant was having balance amount of Rs.250/- in his Fast Tag account. However, when he reached at the toll plaza of op no.2, the status of his Fast Tag was shown as “Blacklist Tag” as is evident from screen shot message Ex.C6 and as such complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.90/- in cash to the op no.2 toll plaza for crossing the toll plaza as well as for return journey as is evident from receipt Ex.C7. But however, when the complainant returned from Fatehabad and crossed the toll plaza of op no.2 by showing the cash slip of toll plaza regarding return journey also, after 15-20 minutes he received a message of deduction of Rs.60/- through his said Fast Tag account and said fact is also proved from the Wallet Statement of Fast Tag account of complainant Ex.C5. Despite the fact that complainant had already paid amount of Rs.90/- in cash to the toll plaza of op no.2 including return journey, an amount of Rs.60/- was deducted from the Fast Tag account of complainant despite the fact that earlier the Fast Tag account of the complainant was shown as Blacklisted by the system of the op no.2. As such it is proved on record that system fixed on the toll plaza of op no.2 was not functioning properly because once the system of the op no.2 had shown the Fast Tag account of the complainant as Blacklisted due to which complainant had to pay amount of Rs.90/- in cash for both journeys i.e. for going and for returning but on return journey the system of the op no.2 deducted the amount of Rs.60/- from the Fast Tag account of complainant despite the fact that complainant had already paid amount for return journey also. So, it is proved on record that there is deficiency in service on the part of op no.2. Since system of op no.2 was not functioning properly and complainant was harassed by the officials of Toll Plaza only, so present complaint is maintainable only against op no.2. Since the amount was deducted from the Fast Tag account of complainant on return journey only due to fault in the system of op no.2, therefore, op no.1 bank is not at any fault and there is no deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 bank. The op no.2 charged amount of Rs.90/- for both the journeys manually but despite charging payment of both sides journey manually the system of op no.2 again deducted amount of Rs.60/- from the Fast Tag account of complainant and has caused loss to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The op no.2 even did not bother to appear before this Commission despite notice and opted to be proceeded against exparte. So, it is proved on record that complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and losses as well as litigation expenses due to the deficient act of the op no.2. In this regard complainant has also relied upon decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in case titled as Kurukshetra Express Pvt. Ltd. versus Raj Kumar and others decided on 27.12.2019 wherein the compensation of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the District Forum in respect of deficiency in service as upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission was confirmed and said judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 i.e. Bhavdin Toll Plaza and direct the concerned Agency of op no.2 to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment, mental agony and losses to the complainant. We also direct the op no.2 to refund the above said amount of Rs.60/- to the complainant. We direct the op no.2 to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to receive above said total amount of Rs.25,060/- alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. However, complaint against op no.1 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 22.11.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
