DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 339 of 21.8.2018

                                      Decided on:           28.11.2019

Honey Garg son of Sh.Bharat Bhushan,resident of H.No.62-A, Gurdarshan Nagar, Patiala.                                                           …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Managing Director, Dhareri JattanToll Plaza,Vill. Dhareri Jattan, Tehsil and District Patiala.                                                         …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member                                            

ARGUED BY:             

                                      Sh.G.S.Kajjal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Party Ex-parte.                 

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. This complaint is filed by Honey Garg (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Managing Director, Dhareri Jattan Toll Plaza          (hereinafter referred to as OP) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 26.6.2018 at about 20:33:11 the complainant while coming from Mohali to Patiala in his car bearing No.PB-11-BA-0037 crossed Dhareri Jattan Toll Plaza.
3. It is contended that the fees fixed by the concerned Toll Plaza team for Car/Jeep for single journey is Rs.35/-.The Operator of both number LP3 named as Gopi of Dhareri Jattan Toll Plaza had charged Rs.35/- from complainant for single journey vide receipt bearing ticket No.800049395 .
4. It is also contended that the complainant is holding “Fastag” card of HDFC Bank with login id 180000022975 and IP Address 157.39.189.49 Definition of “Fastag”:-

“Fastag card is linked to prepaid account from which the applicable Toll amount is deducted. The tag employs Radio frequency identification(RFID) technology and is affixed on the vehicle’s wind screen after the tag account is active”.

5. It is further contended that on dated 26.6.2018 at 8:52 PM the complainant received email from the HDFC bank on his email ID on
6. It is further contended that the complainant was charged twice for crossing the Toll Plaza for the same single journey regarding which the complainant while during the next visit at the same toll plaza asked  the employee Manager for the refund but they simply denied the truth and treated complainant unprofessionally with rude behaviour. Due to double charging of fee, the complainant caused great stress and mental agony. The complainant tried his level best by visiting the premises of OP for getting the needful done from the OP but the OP did not pay any heed  to the genuine request of the complainant.
7. In this background of the facts, the complainant has prayed for burdening the OP with costs of Rs.50,000/- for rendering deficient service and causing mental agony and harassment .
8. Notice was issued to the OP to contest the claim of the complainant. OP despite service failed to put appearance, hence proceeded against ex-parte.
9. Complainant was afforded opportunity to produce his evidence.
10. In support of the case of the complainant his counsel tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA, original receipt,Ex.C1, copy of e-mail,Ex.C2, copy of road user transaction/account entries of fastag, Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
11. Ld. counsel for the complainant has also filed written arguments.
12. We have carefully perused the complaint, gone through the evidence produce on file and heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the complainant.
13. It is an admitted fact that the OP has charged Rs.35/- for a single journey passage for the vehicle car/jeep bearing No.PB-0037 on 26.6.2018 at 20:33:11 at Toll Plaza which fact is corroborated vide Ex.C1. Further the contention of the complainant is established that his car was fitted with Fast Tag by Ex.C2. The perusal of the same reveals that an amount of Rs.35/- was debited from the account of the complainant by HDFC Bank for transaction of vehicle PB 11 BA 0037 on 26.6.2018 at 26:31:01.From these facts, it is substantiated that the vehicle of the complainant passed through the lane meant for the vehicle fitted with Fast Tag.It is the duty of the attendant not to charge any amount for passage of the vehicle unless the system of scanning Fast Tag is out of order. It has been clearly proved that the OP has charged twice from the complainant for the same transaction of the same vehicle. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
14. The evidence produced by the complainant remained unrebutted  and there is no reason to disbelieve it since it also supported by  an sworn affidavit. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of which the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made there are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. The Opposite party did not appear before this Forum despite service and presumption of service was raised and it was proceeded against ex-parte. . In view of this all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by the opposite party and an adverse inference is to be drawn against it.
15. Thus allowing the complaint, we direct the OP to refund Rs.35/- alongwith another sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation inclusive of costs for causing harassment and mental agony inclusive of litigation expenses within the period of 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
16. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
17.          The complaint could not be decided with the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:28.11.2019                                                     

                                           B.S.DHALIWAL                  INDERJEET KAUR

                                           MEMBER                              MEMBER