Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. 695
Instituted on : 16.12.2019
Decided on :06.11.2024
DigvijayJakhar, s/o Sh. Khushi Ram Jakhar,R/o A-92, PreetVihar, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
….….Complainant
Vs.
1. One97 Communications Ltd.,1stFloor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019,Through its Registered Office, Manager.
2. 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: Sh. DigvijayJakhar, Advocate complainant in person.
Sh. Munish Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he is the registered owner of vehicle No. HR51BC7536 and a regular user of the toll road maintained by opposite party no. 2. As per government regulations, FASTAG became mandatory from 15.12.2019 for vehicles crossing toll plazas and without a FASTAG, vehicles are required to pay double the toll charges. On approaching opposite party no. 2 for a Fastag, the complainant was directed to order it via Paytm Mall App. i.e. opposite party no. 1. The complainant ordered a Fastag on 30.11.2019 through opposite party no. 1 paying Rs.400/- vide Order No. 9801967677 with an assurance of delivery by 12.12.2019. However, opposite party no. 1 extended the delivery date to 18.12.2019.Due to the delay, the complainant had requested for cancellation and refund but of no use.Opposite party no. 2 further refused to issue another Fastag stating that only one Fastag could be generated per vehicle. The above act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint, and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to issue the Fastag and reimburse all toll charges occurred due to the delay, to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment, and economic loss suffered by the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appearedand filed its written statement submitting therein that in the complaint it is nowhere mentioned that how the opposite party no.1 is liable in the present case because in his complaint, the complainant alleged that he had ordered a fastag on 30.11.2019 vide order id no. 98/01967677 from PaytmApp for Rs.400/- and he has not received the said fastag before the promised time. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. Complainant has alleged that he had to pay double toll tax at toll plazas, however, he has failed to place on record even a single receipt. Admittedly, the complainant had used the Fastag lane instead of the cash lane which have allegedly caused him excess amount. Since the complainant was well aware that his vehicle was not having any Fastag before 21.12.2019, hence using the Fastag lane without having any Fastag for his vehicle, was voluntary and hence opposite party no.1 cannot in any manner be held liable for the acts of the complainant.Opposite party no.1 has successfully delivered the fastag on 21.12.2019.Hence, there exist no questionsof any deficiency in service in the present complaint and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. On the other hand, the complainant vide his separately recorded statement has given up the opposite party no.2 being unnecessary party and therefore, the opposite party no.2 was given up vide order dated 14.02.2020 of this Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 08.03.2021. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex R-1 to Ex. R-2 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 09.06.2022.
5. In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that he ordered a Fastag on 30.11.2019 through opposite party no. 1 by paying Rs.400/- and it was assured by the opposite party no.1 that the same will be delivered upto 12.12.2019. But theopposite party no. 1 extended the delivery date to 18.12.2019. Due to the delay, the complainant had requested for cancellation and refund of amount, but the same was refused.Opposite party no. 2 further refused to issue another Fastag stating that only one Fastag could be generated per vehicle. Due to extended delivery of Fastaag, the complainant had to pay the double toll road fee at toll plaza. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record payment receipt Ex.C2, status of delivery of product Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, cancellation request Ex.C6, copy of message Ex.C7 and copy of email Ex.C8. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 is that complainant has failed to place on record any document to prove the fact that he had to pay double toll tax at toll plazas. It is further contented that since the complainant was well aware that his vehicle was not having any Fastag before 21.12.2019, hence using the Fastag lane without having any Fastag for his vehicle, was voluntary and hence opposite party no.1 cannot in any manner be held liable for the acts of the complainant. Opposite party no.1 has successfully delivered the fastag on 21.12.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8701 of 1997 titled as Ravneer Singh BaggaVs. M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is well proved that complainant had applied for Fastag on 30.11.2019 and as per the status report Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, it is shown that firstly the Fastag was arriving by 12.12.2019, then the date was extended to 18.12.2019 but the same was delivered on 21.12.2019. Complainant also requested to cancel the Fastag but the same was refused by the opposite party on the ground that the kit was already been shipped. But due to extension of delivery dates, complainant might have suffered harassment. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.As such, the law cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, complainant has failed to place on record any document/receipt of payment, to prove the fact that he had to pay double toll road fee at toll plaza. Hence he has not suffered any damages on account of toll charges and is only entitled for compensation on account of deficiency in service.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation charges to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the alleged awarded amount of Rs.5000/- from the date of this order till its realisation to the complainant.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. 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:
06.11.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
