By Sri.M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant traveled through the Chettuva Bridge on 26.11.07 in his car. The 1st respondent levied Rs.7.50 as toll vide receipt No.35. The complainant claimed it as illegal. The complainant claimed that toll is being levied against the conditions and excess amount is also levied by the respondents. Hence the complaint filed requesting to refund the amount collected from him and also for compensation.
2. The respondents called absent and set exparte.
3. The complainant produced Ext. P1 receipt and he is examined as PW1.
4. The complaint is filed against the collection of fees at the Chettuva bridge. The complainant had to pay Rs.7.50 when he traveled through the Chettuva Bridge in his car on 26.11.07. The complainant claimed this collection as illegal. The fees are collected in view of the provisions contained in the National Highway Act 1956. As per the rules framed under it the 1st respondents is entitled to collect till. In exercising the rule making power the Central Government have framed the National Highways (Fees for the use of National Highways Section and permanent bridge public fended project rules 1997 and therefore enable government to levy fees in vehicles for the use of National Highways or permanent bridges. Hence the collection of fee cannot be considered as illegal.
5. The complainant has stated that excess amount has been levied from him but no evidence is produced to reveal that the Ext. P1 amount is excess. The PW1 has stated in cross examining him that “Central Government National Highway Authorities, tender
(In Malayalam words)
(In Malayalam words)
.” However the complainant has not stated the cost for the construction for the bridge and the total amount collected as fees during these periods. Without these accounts how can he say that amount in excess to the cost of production has been collected. The complainant has admitted that he is not denied the right to travel through the bridge. Hence there is no service is denied to the complainant and the other issues raised in the complaint are public issues rather than consumer dispute. So the complainant is not entitled to get back the amount paid by him.
6. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of March 2012.
