Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/125/2019

M.Mohana Sundaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Highways Authority of India & Another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s S P S Budhan

23 Feb 2023

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 29.04.2019

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 27.01.2023

                                                     Date of Order               : 23.02.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.125 /2019

THURSDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

M. Mohana Sundaram,

First Floor,

Old No, 39/1B, New No. 26,

Balu Mudali Lane,

Old Washermenpet,

Chennai-600021.                                                                                                                      ... Complainant            

..Vs..

1.National Highways Authority Of India,

   Rep. by it's Project Director,

   Regional Office,

   Sri Towers, 3^rd Floor,

   DP-34, (SP), Industrial Estate,

   Guindy, Chennai-600032.

 

2.Nallur Toll Plaza,

   Rep. by it's Concessionaire - Inderdeep construction company,

   GNT Road, NH-5,

   Sholavaram Post,

   Thiruvallur District – 600067.                                                                                                ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. S.P.S. Buddhan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Exparte

 

On perusal of records, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay excess rate of Rs.35/- that was collected from Complainant, with interest at the rate of 24% p.a, from 30.11.2018 till the date of realization to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation and damages to the Complainant for collection of excess rate fixed by law under Rule 4 (2) (a) of the National Highways Fees (Determination of Rates and collections) Rules, 2008 totalling in all a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 24% p.a from 30.11.2018 till the date of realization and direct the Opposite Party not to collect any excess of rate order fixed Rule 4 (2) (s) of The National Highways Fe (Determination of Rates and collections) Rules, 2008. 

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant with his family was returning on 01.12.2018 from Tirupati to Chennai Via Tada in a tempo traveller van bearing registration number TN 12 D 4096 that has 13 persons (12 Passengers + driver) carrying capability including driver, when they had reached the Nallur toll plaza at NH-5 he was insisted to pay Rs.82/- for single journey though the display board shows that the rate of single journey for car / jeep/ van is Rs.47/-. When he enquired about the excess rate collected at toll plaza, the staff at the counter replied that since his van was bearing a yellow coloured number board, the van is classified as Light Commercial Vehicle.When he asked for an explanation for collecting such excessive rate that is illegal and the staff of toll plaza reiterated the same reason of colour of number plate. The Complainant has paid Rs.82/-  i.e the rate of LCV / mini bus for 13 persons (12 passengers + driver ) carrying capability seat vehicle and a receipt number 481777 was issued to him by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The above said toll plaza is already notorious for attacking the passengers for extorting money and such news was published in newspapers dated 15.07.2018. Hence he was reluctant to argue further and left the toll plaza. It was clear that toll plaza staffs were collecting excessive higher amount than amount prescribed by government under Rule 4 (2) (a) of The National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 by converting the type of vehicles, for many years violating the circular dated 14.01.2016 issued by National Highways Authority of India vide circular No.NHAI/CO/01/2016.After returning from Tirupathi he sent a legal notice dated 05.12.2018 to the head office of 1^st Opposite Party which was forwarded to 1^stOpposite Party with a covering letter dated 28.12.2018. A copy of above said legal notice sent to 2^nd Opposite Party returned as “UNCLAIMED” but intimation delivered. The 1^st Opposite Party sent a reply dated 14.02.2019 stating that the vehicle bearing register No.TN 12 D 4096 in which Complainant travelled is a LPV /LCV as MoRTH website and the Second Opposite Party is collecting correct toll fee for above category vehicles as Rs.82/-. He also took a copy of RC status for the vehicle bearing register No.TN 12 D 4096 in which the vehicle class is mentioned as ‘MAXI CAB (LPV)”. So it was clear that the above mentioned vehicle is categorized as only LPV, that too in bracket, not as LPV/LCV. The Complainant could not understand how the 1^st Opposite Party added LCV to the category of vehicle which was not found in RC status in the above mentioned website. Further there is no category of vehicle LPV in Motor Vehicles Act,1988 nor in The National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collections) Rules, 2008.It is an admitted fact that the vehicle bearing register No.TN 12 D 4096 is a “MAXI CAB” category vehicle in which 12 passengers can travel excluding driver. As per circular NO.NHAO/CO/01/2016 dated 14.01.2016, in page No.2 the “MAXI CAB” under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is corresponding to CAR/JEEP/VAN/LMV under NH fee rules. Hence it was clear that the 1^stOpposite Party added a category of vehicle i.e. LCV which was not found in website and intentionally ignored all the rules and circulars, to justify the higher illegal collection of toll fees by 2^nd Opposite Party. Transport Authorities of both TamilNadu and Andhra issued a permit confirming that vehicle bearing register No.TN 12 D 4096 is a 13 seater including driver. Thus the Complainant has proved his vehicle is a MAXI CAB which should be charged under CAR/JEEP/ VAN/LMV category in toll plazas but the 2^nd Opposite Party had charged rate excess of the rate fixed by Rule 4 (2) (a) of The National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collections) Rules, 2008.The 1^st Opposite Party instead monitoring the collection of correct toll fees had joined hands with the 2^nd Opposite Party and permitted them to collect excess fees fixed under the above Rule, for many years. The 1^st Opposite Party went to the extent of voluntarily adding “LCV” in the R.C. status of the vehicle to justify the excess rate collected by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party did not initiate any action under section 13 of The National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collections) Rules, 2008 and failed to refund the excess rate collected from him and damages for the inconvenience faced by him. Hence the Complaint.

3.The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10.  The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice was served on them and remained set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is any Unfair Trade Practice committed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any other relief/s? 

Point No.1:-

On perusal of the complaint and exhibits marked in support of the complaint, the complainant had filed this complaint for the excess toll fees collected by the 2^nd Opposite Party on 01.12.2018 for the vehicle in which he travelled with his family, a tempo traveller van bearing Registration No.TN 12 D 4096 that has to be charged with Rs.47/- as their vehicle comes under the category of Van, instead Rs.82/- collected categorizing their vehicle as LCV/Mini Bus, which is against Rule 4 (2) (a) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and collections) Rules, 2008. Toll Plaza Information of the 2^nd Opposite Party showing the charges to be collected based on the category of the vehicles has been marked as Ex.A-1, wherein fees for Car/Jeep/Van mentioned as Rs.47/- for single journey and for LCV mentioned as Rs.82/- for single journey. Toll fee receipt for Rs.82/- has been marked as Exhibit A-5. The Complainant had sent a Legal Notice dated 05.12.2018 to the 1^st Opposite Party’s Head office and to the 2^nd Opposite Party, Ex.A-6. The reply dated 14.02.2019 given by the 1^st Opposite Party’s Head office, Ex.A-7, wherein it has been mentioned that the vehicle in which the Complainant travelled was found to be with category of LPV/LCV as per MoRTH Website and the user fees for single journey of the said category is Rs.45/-, Rs.82/- and Rs.90/- in respect of Pattarai perumpudur, Nallur and Surapattu, respectively, as per rates approved by NHAI, accordingly the agency had collected the correct user fees.

The Complainant contended that in the Registration Certificate of the Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 12 D 4096 it is mentioned as “MAXI CAB (LPV)”, as per Ex.A-10, thus the said vehicle should have been categorized as LPV and not as LPV/LCV and further there is no such category of LPV in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 nor in the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collections) Rules, 2008. And the 1^st Opposite Party instead of monitoring the fees to be collected as per Rules, had joined hands with the 2^nd Opposite Party and permitted them to collect excess fees fixed under the above Rule, for many years. The 1^st Opposite Party went to the extent of voluntarily adding “LCV” in the R.C. status of the vehicle to justify the excess rate collected by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party did not initiate any action under section 13 of The National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collections) Rules, 2008.

On discussions made above and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the dispute that has been raised with regard to the categorization of the vehicle based on Ex.A-10, is not a consumer dispute and the same is not maintainable before this Commission, further the 1^st Opposite Party had responded to the legal notice dated 05.12.2018, Ex.A-7, and based on the category of the vehicle the user fees collected was found to be correct. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 having collected the fees as approved by NHAI from the Complainant had not committed unfair trade practice. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 23^rd of  February 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	07.03.2019	Toll plaza rate information
Ex.A2	14.01.2016	Circular No.NHAI/CO/01/2016
Ex.A3	30.11.2018	Temporary permit of Tamilnadu
Ex.A4	30.11.2018	Vehicle check report at Andhra
Ex.A5	01.12.2018	Toll bill
Ex.A6	05.12.2018	Legal Notice
Ex.A7	19.12.2018	Return Postal cover
Ex.A8	28.12.2018	Covering letter
Ex.A9	14.02.2019	Reply letter of 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A10	19.02.2019	R.C Online status

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT