DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  21^st day of December, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt.Vidya A., Member             

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 06/04/2022    

     CC/60/2022

Vince M.J.,

S/o Late M.J. John,

23/1087, Near Fort Maidan,

Palakkad.                                                        -           Complainant

(Party in Person)

                                                                                    Vs

M/s Thrissur Expressway Limited,

Panniyankara,

Vadakkancherry, Trissur,

Rep. by its Manager.                                      -           Opposite party

            (OP by  Adv. Sreenath S.)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Unopposed pleadings in brief are that the complainant, while negotiating the Panniankara Toll Plaza, was charged thrice the amount payable. Initially the card reader failed to debit amount from the Fastag account. Hence the officials at the plaza forced the complainant to pay the double amount, reserved for black-listed Fastags. After having crossed the toll, it transpired that the toll levy of Rs. 90/- was also debited from the complainant. Even though a formal complaint was registered, the opposite party not only  failed to credit the excess amount, but also ridiculed the complainant for using defective Fastags. Complainant is aggrieved by this conduct on the part of the opposite party and has filed this complaint for return of the amount of Rs. 180/- charged in excess and for compensation.
2. Even-though the opposite parties entered appeared, the failed to file version within statutory period and hence version was rejected.
3. In view of the failure of the opposite parties in filing version and contesting complaint pleadings, this Commission is saddled only with the responsibility of adjudicating whether the complainant has made out a prima facie case. To that end, the following issues are framed:

1.         Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party?

2.         Whether the complainant has made out a prima-facie case?

3.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the complaint reliefs?

4.         Any other reliefs, if any.

4.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavit on the complainant and Exts. A1 to A4.

Issue No. 1

5.         At the time of hearing, we had expressed our doubts regarding maintainability of the complaint as we felt that the opposite party was not a service provider as contemplated under the Act. But the complainant directed out attention to the fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party considering the fact that he purchased a FasTag by payment of consideration. And that payment of consideration made him a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite party a service provider.

Considering the fact that the there was no appearance for the opposite parties and for want of better counter arguments, we are inclined to tag the line of the complainant that he is a consumer via a vis the opposite party.   

            Issue No. 2

6.         Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of complainant.

Ext. A1 is a single journey invoice issued from Panniankara Toll Plaza for car bearing number KL-09-J-3636. Ext. A1 is for Rs. 180/- inclusive of Rs. 90/- as penalty. It is seen issued on 12/03/2022 at 07:57:03 hours.

Ext. A2 is a printout of the message showing deduction of Rs. 90/- for car bearing number KL-09-J-3636 on 12/03/2022 at Panniankara Toll Plaza. Deduction is done at 07:55:41 hours.

Ext. A3 is a notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party.

Ext. A4 is a copy of the transaction details at Panniankara Toll Plaza.

7.         Eventhough the complainant has not produced any documents proving that the car bearing number KL-09-J-3636 belongs to him, we feel that a conjoint reading of Exhibits would prove that the car belonged to the complainant.

8.         Ext. A1 and A2 shows that Ext. A1 transactions penalizing the complainant occurred approximately two minutes after Rs. 90/- was deducted from the account of the complainant’s FasTag as evidenced by Ext. A2.

9.         Thus the complainant has proved that the facts alleged by him are prima facie maintainable.

            Issue nos. 3 & 4

10.       As already stated, the complainant has proved a prima facie case. The amounts are yet to be credited to the account of the complainant. It is pathetic to note that the opposite parties are resorting to hyper technical approach for returning of such menial accounts, while the said irregularities can be noticed by mere checking of the computer system. Instead the complainant is made to file complaint without any outcome or remedy. The complainant was put to extreme difficulty and the opposite party dragged the complainant to a court for redressal of his grievance. Obviously, debit of Rs. 90/- occurred prior to penalizing the complainant. If the system of the opposite party failed to reflect that transaction, the complainant cannot be made liable and responsible.

We therefore hold that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Complaint stands allowed in part with regard to the compensation and refund parts.

11.       The opposite parties are hereby ordered to:

1.         Refund Rs. 180/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 12/03/2021 fill date of payment.

2.         Pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.

3.         Pay a cost of Rs. 15,000/-.

4.         The opposite party shall comply with the above three directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the opposite party shall pay solatium of Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof from the date of this order till the date of actual payment

            Pronounced in open court on this the 21^st   day of  December, 2022.                                                                                                                                   Sd/-                                         

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member        

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  -   Original Ticket bearing no. 01764 dated 12/03/2022.

Ext.A2 –   Printout of telephonic message regarding deduction for car bearing no. KL 09 AJ 3636. Ext.A3  –   Copy of lawyers notice dated 22/04/2022 along with postal receipt.

Ext.A4  –   Printout of FAsTAg transaction dated 12/03/2022. 

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Exhibit:   Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.