Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No. 701
Instituted on: 19/12/2019
Decided on: 29.11.2024.
DigvijayJakhar age 39 years, s/o Sh. Khushi Ram Jakhar, R/o A-92, PreetVihar, Rohtak – 124001.
….Complainant
Vs.
- Madina Toll Plaza-1, Rohtak – Hisar Tollway Pvt. Ltd., KM 99.835 on NH-10, Rohtak-Hisar, National Highways Authority of India. Through its Manager.
- National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), G-5&6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. Through its Director.
- Kurukshetra Expressway Pvt. Ltd., TollPlazaDighal, In between Rohtak&Jhajjar, Village, Dighal (Haryana). Through its Manager.
……Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. ParveenGoyat, Advocate for the Opposite Party no.1.
Sh. N.K. Singhal, Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.
Opposite Party No. 3 already given up (V.O.D. 14.02.2020).
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present compliant, as per complainant, are that on 05.12.2019, he had urgent work in Hansi and travelled from Karontha to Hansi via Madina Toll Plaza by his personal vehicle No.HR12W5653. He paid Rs.85/- for return journey vide toll receipt no.1439688011 at 09.38 A.M. The road maintained by opposite party no. 3 was in poor condition with deep craters and huge cracks. Bricks/stones were lying most of times on toll road, railing and fencing was broken which always invited accidents. Basic amenities such as washrooms were not maintained and essential safety features like reflector and signboards were missing or broken, violating NHAI norms. Due to poor road conditions, the complainant experienced difficulty in driving and felt that the vehicle is going one side automatically. Upon inspection by a mechanic, it was found that the wheel alignment and balancing were affected, one tyre was 50% damaged and front left hand shocker was also leaked/damaged. The complainant and his friends narrowly escaped death due to broken dividers. The complainant could not enjoy the driving even after paying huge amount to the opposite party No.1. Although the speed limit on toll road is 90Km per hour but it is very dangerous to drive on it due to above irregularities of the opposite parties. The complainant sent a legal notice on 09.12.2019 and various emails to the opposite parties seeking compensation for damages and toll charges but the opposite parties failed to respond. The failure on the part of the opposite parties to maintain the toll road, constitutes a deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practices. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.85/- on account of toll fee, Rs.3300/- for shocker replacement, Rs.900/- for wheel alignment and Rs.7200/- for tyre replacement along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Commission found deem fit and proper, to the complainant.
2. Upon registered notice, the opposite party No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their separate written statements. However, opposite party No. 3 was given up by this Commission being unnecessary vide order dated 14.2.2020, on the statement given by the complainant in this regard.
3. Opposite party no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party as there is no deficiency in service on its part. The allegations made by the complainant are false and baseless. The opposite party no.1 has denied all the claims regarding poor road maintenance, wheel alignment issue and vehicle damage and averred that no evidence has been provided by the complainant regarding any specific location or incident. Further, it is contended that the opposite party no.1 fulfils all the norms and guidelines issued by the NHAI time to time regarding road construction and safety and NHAI has given NOC regarding Toll collection after inspecting the toll road properly and to fulfil all the necessary conditions. The NHAI has inspected the road issues time to time and no illegal cuts, deep craters, huge cracks and cow dung cakes were present over the road. The toll road maintained by the opposite party no.1 has been properly maintained with the guidelines of opposite party no.2 (NHAI). So the allegations have been made by the complainant just only to harass the opposite party and the same have been denied. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint has been sought by the opposite party no.1.
4. Opposite party no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as the liability, if any, rest solely on the part of opposite party no. 1 or opposite party no.3 who are the agencies fully responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the relevant National Highway and the opposite party has been unnecessary dragged into the litigation. The complainant has made vague and false averments without mentioning the KM stone number, between which he had faced alleged difficulties. National Highways are being maintained as per the concessionaire agreement by executing agencies and they are under contractual obligation to operate and maintain the respective Highway. As the complaint lacks the material particulars regarding the place, KM stone of alleged difficulties faced by the complainant, so the alleged irregularities could not be identified. There is a well established mechanism for monitoring and testing of quality of construction/development of the work of NH (National Highway)/Road through the deputed team of experts by engaging a Consultancy firm of International/National repute for every project, which is adhered to in each case. Further quality audits are also done by the quality auditors from time to time. So, the complaint is making false averments. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed the same on 24.03.2023. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW2/A and closed the same on 14.03.2024. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 failed to tender any evidence despite affording sufficient opportunities for the said purpose and therefore, the evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by court order on dated 14.03.2024.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that he travelled through the toll road of respondent no.3 on 05.12.2019, which is not maintained properly and there are deep craters and huge cracks on the alleged road, bricks, stones were lying most of the times on that road, railing, fencing was broken and basic facilities like washroom/toilets were not well maintained. Due to which, vehicle of the complainant was damaged. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record copy of toll receipt Ex.C1 dated 05.12.2019, copy of bill Ex.C3 of wheel alignment dated 12.12.2019, copy of invoice Ex.C4 regarding shocker replacement, copy of photographs Ex.C5 and copies of emails Ex.C6 to Ex.C7. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. From the photographs placed on record by the complainant, it has not been established that on which road, these photographs have been taken.
No KM stone number has been mentioned, between which he had faced alleged difficulties.Moreover, no any authentic report is placed on record by the complainant to prove the fact that these damages occurred due to the road jumps or cracks in the road. As per the toll receipt, he travelled through the alleged toll road on dated 05.12.2019 whereas copy of bill Ex.C3 of wheel alignment is dated 12.12.2019. Hence it is not proved that the wheel alignment and balancing were affected due to the alleged road conditions. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, complainant has failed to prove his case. However, law cited by the complainant, of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.3253 of 2002 titled New India Assurance Company LimittedVs. Pradeep Kumar, Hon’ble State Commission, Uttarakhand in First Appeal no.78/2009 titled as Kuldeep Chandra Bhasin etc. Vs. ShambhuPaswan and District Commission, Rohtak in CC No.CC/20/209 titled as JoginderVs. Shree Shyam Plywood & Laminates are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.11.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
