Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/275

M/s Vandana Impex - Complainant(s)

Versus

Federal Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Sood Adv.

13 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 275 dated 29.10.2020.                                 

                      Date of decision: 13.06.2023.

Ms. Vandana Impex, B-XV-239/1, Nirankari Street No.1, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana 141003 through its partner Shri Pawan Sood aged 70 years (senior citizen) son of Shri Ram Lal son of Shri Munshi Ram.                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Federal Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana 141001 through its Branch Manager.

2.Rajan Telecom Private Limited, 206, Phase-II, Dugri, Ludhiana through its Local Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Pawan Sood, Partner of complainant in

person.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Alok Mohindra, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh.Sunil Goel, Advocate.

 

 ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that Sh.Pawan Sood is one of the partners of the complainant firm and the partners of the complainant firm commands good reputation in the society and in business circle since long. On 24.12.2019, Mr.Sunil mobile No.85679-57745 representative of OP2 visited the office of the complainant and told that they are authorized by the OP1 for the issuance of Fast Tag service and requested the complainant to join them as per the guidelines of Government of India and asked to deposit Rs.1500/- with their banker Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ludhiana and given the bank account No.07771131004863 IFSC Code:ORBC0100777. The partners of the complainant firm agreed for depositing Rs.1500/- by way of cheque No.256239 dated 24.12.2019 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. On receipt of cheque, Mr.Sunil representative of OP2 given a Fast Tag Stickers Number (A) 607363-001—158653 (B) 607363-001-0158654 to the complainant for the cars bearing registration No.PB-10-DM-1616 & PB-10-EE-1616 and they opened the account of the complainant with OP1 vide CA1926107901(this account number with Rs.1000/- current balance from total Rs.1500/- in which the OP2 charged Rs.400/- from the complainant as commission and Rs.100/- for both Fast Tag Sticker charges (Rs.50/- each). On 11.07.2020, the vehicle of the complainant bearing No.PB-10-EE-1616 visited National Highway Authority of India, Panipat-Jalandhar, National Highway/1 Tollway Private Limited, Ladhowal Toll Plaza where the toll plaza authority told the complainant that their fast tag sticker is not working due to insufficient balance and they have charged Rs.260/- instead of Rs.130/- vide Ticket No.5FF06692994022 booth operator 02 & 00550 date and time 11.07.2020 for single time journey and ticket No.42597583194142 booth operator 20 & 00513 date and time 13.07.2020 16:54. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP2 who send the statement of account to the complainant which shows that credit balance as Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, the complainant repeatedly requested the OP1 to refund of the amount of Rs.1500/- by sending letters, reminders and emails but to no avail. The said act and conduct of the opposite parties is claimed to be deficiency of service. So, by filing the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund of the amount of Rs.1500/- taken from the complainant along with compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of deficiency in service. The complainant also claimed Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complainant was issued to opposite parties no.1 and 2 who put in appearance and filed their separate written statements. The opposite party no.1 filed the written statement in which they have raised preliminary objections that answering OP did not receive any toll transaction in respect of the vehicle of the complainant as stated by the complainant in the complaint. When no such transaction was ever received by the answering OP on the given date so there is no question of any acceptance or rejection of any such transaction. It is submitted that the role of answering OP is limited to on boarding of customer to Fastag and other aspects like registering the Fastag with NPCI etc are the responsibilities vested in the 2^nd opposite party, which is the service provider for the answering OP. In fact, after the Fastag is issued by the service provider i.e. OP2, then the same is required to be linked immediately to the vehicle in the Fastag System. It is the duty of OP2 to make the request for linking the said Fastags. Any issues concerning registration of Fastag with NPCI is being dealt with by the OP2. The complainant has not even prima-facie shown that any such transaction was rejected, as alleged and if at all such transaction has ever been rejected then whether the said rejection was due to any fault on the part of the answering OP1. The entire complaint is based on conjectures and surmises without any cogent pleadings and same is liable to be dismissed.

                   On merits, all the allegations levelled by the complainant have been denied being wrong by specifically stated that on 11.07.2020, there was a credit balance of Rs.1000/- in the account of the complainant. In the end, the opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In separate written statement filed by the OP2, it has been submitted that the answering OP is authorized franchise of OP1 Federal Bank to active the fastag, as such, the answering OP has the responsibility of only up to the activating the fast tags and after the activation of fastags, answering OP has no role in the operation of fastag at Toll Plaza which are managed by National Highway Authority of India and National Payment System NPCI. The fastags were duly activated and loaded with Rs.1000/- wallet by the answering OP and as such, answering OP cannot be held liable for the failure of transactions at Toll Plaza. OP2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.                The complainant filed replication reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement filed by the opposite party no.2.

5.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C3 copies of account number of OP1, Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 are copies of fastag stickers of both the car given by the OP2, Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 are the copies of registration certificate of the cars, Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 are the copies of toll plaza receipts, Ex.C10 is copy of letter dated 28.07.2020 sent by the complainant to National Highway Authority of India Panipat, Jalandhar, Ex.C11 to Ex.C13 are the copies of reminders, Ex.C14 to Ex.C16 are the copies of emails sent by the complainant to the OPs and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Ashish Nautial, Branch Manager and duly constituted attorney of the Federal Bank Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana of OP1 along with documents Ex. R1/1 i.e.copy of service provider agreement dated 25.11.2019, Ex.R1/2 to Ex.R1/5 are the copies of email, Ex.R1/6 is the copy of details of first successful transaction on fastag of vehicle of complainant prior to 11.07.2020, Ex.R1/7 is copy of email dated 01.03.2019 of NPCI in respect of reasons due to which the fastag can be blacklisted and closed the evidence.  

7.                Similarly, counsel for the OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA/2 of Ms.Deepika Goyal, Director of Rajan Telecom, Ludhiana and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.     

9.                Admittedly, OP1 is a banking company who appointed OP2 as a service provider for the purpose of activation, management, updating the system for issuance and loading of RFID(Radio Frequency Identification) Tags for the customers besides performing other duties as per agreement Ex.R1. On 24.12.2019, complainant firm through its partner Sh.Pawan Sood purchased two RFID tags (Ex.C4 and Ex.C5) for their cars bearing registration Nos.PB-10-DM-1616 and PB-10-EE-1616 by making the requisite payments through its bank account. Thereafter, the account No.CA1926107901 of both tags was activated and the snapshots profile information (Ex.C3) and dashboard (Ex.C4) depicted a balance of Rs.1000/- in the said account.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that on 11.07.2020 when the complainant crossed the National Highway/1 Tollway Private Limited, Ladhowal Toll Plaza on his vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10-EE-1616, he was charged Rs.260/- instead of Rs.130/- vide ticket(Ex.C8). Thereby an excess amount of Rs.130/- was charged by the OPs which according to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The reason for charging of Rs.260/- was that RFID FASTags were not functional due to insufficient balance was disclosed by toll authorities. Perusal of documents furnished by the OPs are sufficient to prove that both the RFID FASTags were in active condition on the given date and there was sufficient balance in the designated account which prima-facie belies the version of toll authorities.

11.              For every single FASTag transaction, there is a involvement and participation of four stakeholders. First is the issuing bank(which issues fastags to vehicle owners). The OP1 in the present case, the acquiring bank(which works with the toll plaza), the concessionaire (who runs the toll plaza i.e. Panipat-Jalandhar, NH-1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd.), and the vehicle owner, who is complainant in this case. FASTag is a device that employs Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology for making toll payments directly while the vehicle is in motion. The gag is detected by the RFID readers installed at the toll lanes and the toll lanes of Electronic Toll Collection Infrastructure installed and maintained by the concessionaire. A transaction file is created which is sent by the ETC System Integrator to the acquirer bank of the concessionaire who then passes this transaction to the respective issuer bank through the CCH service provider (NPCI). Thereafter, appropriate toll amount is deducted from FASTag account of the customer and subsequently passed on to the concessionaire/toll operator account. In some cases, ETC equipments are not working and even if the customer was having a valid and functional FASTag with sufficient balance in its account. Such contingencies are governed by Notification dated 07.05.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, which reads as under:-

1.       Short title and commencement – (1) These rules may be called the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2018.

(2)     They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2.       In the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the principal rules), in rule 2, in sub-rule (1) after clause (hc), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-

‘(hd) “Electronic Toll Collection Infrastructure” means set of equipment comprising of hardware and software which shall facilitate electronic collection of user fees;’.

3.       In the principal rules, in rule 6, in sub-rule (3), after the second proviso, the following proviso, shall be inserted, namely:-

          “Provided also that if a vehicle user with a valid, functional FASTag or any such device with sufficient balance in the linked account crossing a fee plaza installed with Electronic Toll Collection infrastructure, is not able to pay user fee through FAST Tag or any such device owing to malfunctioning of Electronic Toll Collection infrastructure, the vehicle user shall be permitted to pass the fee plaza without payment of any user fee. An appropriate zero transaction receipt shall be issued mandatorily for all such transactions.”

12.              So it becomes the bounden duty of the concessionaire to allow the crossing of vehicle from the toll plaza without payment of any user fees and the concessionaire required to issue a zero transaction receipt in all such cases. Strangely enough the concessionaire i.e. Panipat-Jalandhar, NH-1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Ladhowal has not been impleaded as a party to the complaint and its presence was necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the matter in controversy. The present OPs have discharged their part of contractual obligations with regard to activation and management of FASTag and there is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on their part.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)           (Jaswinder Singh)            (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                         President

Announced in Open Commission                                           Dated:13.06.2023                                                                                    Gurpreet Sharma.