BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2016

Date of Institution: 2.2.2016

  Date of Decision: 9.6.2016

Anil Sharma S/o late Sh.J.R.Sharma, aged 40 years, R/o 54, Punjab Road Colony, Near Punjab & Sind Bank, Islamabad, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

IRB Pathankot-Amritsar Toll Roads Pvt.Ltd., National Highway 54, Toll Plaza through its Principal Officer/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge, Waryam Nangal, Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                    : Sh. Rajesh Mahajan,Advocate

For the Opposite Party        : Sh.S.K.Gupta,Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Anil Sharma, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  12 & 14 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  on 11.12.2015 complainant had gone to  Batala on his car bearing registration No. PB-10-BL-4970  . At about 9.06 a.m the complainant had to cross through the Toll Plaza being run and maintained by the opposite party and as such, the complainant paid  Rs. 120/- towards (return journey)  charges for using NH-54 highway which was under the care and control of the opposite party. As such , complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and fully covered within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. On the same day, complainant returned from Batala to Amritsar at about 1.30 p.m. Thereafter, on the same day, the complainant again went from Amritsar to Batala to meet his friend in connection  with some urgent work. On the way at 8.48 p.m. on 11.12.2015 when complainant reached the Toll Plaza  on his aforesaid same car, then complainant was stopped by the employees of the toll plaza and  they asked the complainant to pay the toll charges of Rs. 120/- once again. The complainant showed them the receipt of Rs. 120/- which was earlier issued by the toll plaza officials, but the employees of the toll plaza told him that the said receipt has already been exhausted as it was valid for one time to and fro within 24 hours. As per the information to the complainant, the return pass is valid for 24 hours and a four wheeler vehicle can pass through the toll plaza for multiple (max. Number of two one way) journeys within a day against the payment of Rs. 120/- . The complainant was  astonished to know that opposite party is charging excessively against the notification issued by the National Highway Authority of India  and they were indulging in unfair trade practice . The complainant requested the employee of opposite party No.1 to show the notification in support of their claim, but they flatly refused to comply. Thereafter complainant asked them to provide a complaint book so as to lodge a complaint by the complainant. Initially they refused to provide the complaint book and thereafter on the persistence of  complainant and finding no other way, opposite party supplied the complaint book under compelled circumstances.The complainant lodged his preliminary complaint in the complaint book of the opposite party at Sr.No. 24 dated 11.12.2015 at 8.49 p.m. The complainant also agitated that the opposite party has no right or authority to charge the excess amount forcibly and illegally than the one declared by the National Highway Authority of India . The complainant objected to the wrong information  regarding rate of charges  reflected on the signboard. But the opposite party paid no heed to the genuine and legitimate requests of the complainant . As such complainant was forced to pay Rs. 120/- for the second time within 24 hours on account of adamant attitude of  employees of the opposite party . Since the complainant was in hurry and was left with no time , therefore, in order to avoid any nuisance the complainant paid the fee again. The return pass issued to the complainant for the first time journey on 11.12.2015 at 9.06 a.m was valid uptil 9.06 a.m to 12.12.2015 and as per notification complainant is entitled for two one side journey but on account of wrongful act of the employees of the opposite party, the complainant was forced to pay double the amount. It is pertinent to  mention here that the said pass was duly signed by the supervisor having No. 19393. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-

a)       To make refund of the excess charges of Rs. 120/- charged from the complainant.

b)      To remove the wrong information and to place the correct information regarding rates on the sign board displayed at the site of toll plaza strictly as per the notification issued by NHAI ;

c)       To pay compensation of Rs. 50000/- on account of harassment, mental pain, agony and inconvenience ;

d)      To pay cost of complaint to the tune of Rs. 10000/- on account of legal fee.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It has been filed by the complainant with a malafide intention just to harass and pressurize the opposite party and to drag it into unnecessary litigation. There is no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed ; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party has acted in due course in  discharge of its official duties ; that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing this complaint or claiming any relief from this Forum ; that complainant has come to the Forum with unclean hands and has concealed the true facts from this Forum, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief ; that no cause of action has accrued to the  complainant to file the instant complaint. Complaint as framed is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that  the complainant paid Rs. 120/- to the opposite party towards (return journey) charges i.e. for going from Amritsar to Batala and return to Amritsar which has been availed by him. If on the same day, the complainant passes the same toll plaza for double journey from Amritsar to Batala and back, then he is legally liable to pay the extra charges of Rs. 120/-. The earlier receipt of Rs. 120/- exhausted/elapsed when the complainant used/passed through the same plaza while coming back from Batala to Amritsar as it was valid for one time to and fro within 24 hrs. It is duly mentioned in clause No.4 of the Gazette of India vide notification dated 25.6.2013 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways  copy whereof is attached. It is denied that the official of the opposite party extended any threats to the complainant rather they lawfully demanded  and claimed/charged Rs. 120/- from the complainant which he is legally bound to pay. It is denied that the complainant could pass through the toll plaza for multiple journeys within a day against one payment of Rs. 120/- . The alleged information of the complainant is based on imagination. It is denied that opposite party has been charging excessively in violation of the notification issued by the NH Authority of India. It is denied  that opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice and was guilty of any  malpractice. The complainant is trying to mislead this Forum by misrepresenting the facts based on his imagination. The complainant was rightly charged Rs. 120/- for  double journey to and fro. Remaining facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of toll receipt Ex.C-2, copy of complaint Ex.C-2, copy of sign board Ex.C-4, copy of notification Ex.C-5, copy of calculation of fee amount Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 original toll receipt Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and closed his evidence.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.S.K.Gupta,Adv.counsel for opposite party tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of sh.Parmod Hanuman Prasad Shukla DGM Ex.OP1, resolution Ex.OP2, copy of identity card Ex.OP3, copy of gazette notification Ex.OP4, photographs Ex.OP5 and OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.

5.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite party and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       From the appreciation of the evidence on record, ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant had valid pass for 11.12.2015 for going from Amritsar to Batala for the toll plaza being run and maintained by opposite party and he had paid Rs. 120/- towards (return journey) charges for using NH 54 highway  . On the same day complainant returned from Batala to Amritsar at  about 1.30 p.m. Thereafter , on 11.12.2015, the complainant again had to go from Amritsar to Batala   to meet his friend  in connection with some urgent work. On the way at 8.48 p.m on 11.12.2015 when  complainant reached the toll plaza in the same car, he was stopped by the employees of the toll plaza and they asked the complainant to pay toll charges of Rs. 120/- once again. The complainant showed them the receipt of Rs. 120/- which was earlier issued by toll plaza officials, but the employees did not relent and stated that the pass was valid for one time to and from within 24 hours. The complainant has placed reliance on letter issued by National Highway Authority of India dated 9.6.2015 , copy whereof is Ex.C-5 to impress upon the fact that since the pass was valid for 24 hours  and the complainant could pass through the toll plaza for any number of times during that period. Counsel for the complainant has further contended that opposite party has also displayed wrong information regarding  rates on the signboards displayed at the site of toll plaza  and those should be strictly as per notification issued by NHAI. The complainant has further contended that he lodged protest in writing when he had to pay the toll plaza for the second time, copy of the complaint is Ex.C-3. It has been contended that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 120/- paid for the second time besides that the complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- on account of mental agony and physical pain . The complainant  has also demanded Rs. 10000/- as litigation expenses.

7.       However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes amply clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. As per receipt Ex.C-8, it was return pass valid for to and fro once within 24 hours for 11.12.2015. Opposite party has also placed on record  gazette notification dated 25.6.2013, copy whereof is Ex.OP4. Relevant clause 4 of the said gazette notification is reproduced as under :-

8.       A bare reading of the clause shows that 1 ½ times fee was payable for one way two journeys within 24 hours from the time of payment.The arguments raised by the counsel for the complainant are bereft of any substance when he contends that since the pass was valid for 24 hours for 11.12.2015, therefore, he could pass the toll plaza for any number of times during the validity period of the pass. Letter Ex.C-5 cannot be interpreted in a manner to over shadow the gazette notification issued by Govt. Of India, copy whereof is Ex.OP4 on record. It is the  gazette notification which has to be given over riding effect on other administrative instructions. Even the contention that instructions regarding payment of toll have not been rightly displayed at the spot, is also not tenable because  the fare have been  properly displayed by the authorities & photographs Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP6 bear witness to the fact.

9.       From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 9.6.2016

/R/                                                                         ( S.S.Panesar )

President

                              ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

                                                Member                         Member