BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.358 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 15.10.2020

      Date of Decision: 19.02.2024

Shikha Gupta D/o Sh. Ashok Gupta R/o House No.463-R, Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Paytm Payments Bank Limited, Fast Tag Division situated at V.        J. Business Towers, Sector 125, Uttar Pradesh-201303 through its Manager.

2.       National Highways Authority of India, Kurali Toll Plaza, Kurali,       through its Manager.

                             ….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. A. K. Gupta, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                    Sh. Suteekshan Samrol, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   None for OP No.2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is using the services of OPs in the form of Fast Tag provided by OP No.1 for facilitating un-interrupted movement of her car No.PB08EC1600 make Honda WRV on National Highways while passing the Toll Plazas of OP No.2. On 07-09-2020 at about 5:30 pm, the complainant received a flash message from OP No.1 regarding deduction of Rs.115.00 on account of her crossing Kurali Toll Plaza on 07-09- 2020 at 05:08 pm. It is interesting to know that at on 07-09-2020 and particularly at 05:08 pm, the complainant was at her home at Jalandhar and her aforesaid car was also parked in the house. Therefore, the complainant immediately contacted the OP No.1 to know the reason of illegal deduction from her account, but the OP No.1 could not give any satisfactory reply thereof. However, the OP No. 1 assured to return the amount after cross verifying the fact of non-passing the vehicle from Kurali Toll Plaza on 07-09-2020 at 05:08 pm. Despite waiting till 12-09-2020, the OP No.1 neither returned the aforesaid illegal deduction of Rs.115.00 nor gave any reply thereof, therefore, the complainant raised her concern by lodging a complaint dated 12-09-2020 on the online portal of OP No.1. The OP No.1 vide its online reply dated 13-09-2020 refused to return the illegally deducted amount by saying that:

                   "As checked in our records, the toll plaza has raised a   dispute claiming your vehicle to be of a higher vehicle class than the vehicle class of the tag attached to your vehicle, for your       concerned toll transaction we had sent you notifications to help        us with your vehicle registration copy as supporting evidence to         dispute plaza's claim. As we didn't receive the required        supporting evidence from your end within the defined time       frame, the excess toll fare amount due to this vehicle class         mismatch has been debited from your wallet.

          Please find below the transaction details-

          Transaction ID-00661708175

          Plaza Name- BSC-C&C Kurali Toll Palaza

          Journey Date-23-08-2020

          Total disputed Amount-Rs.115"

                   Surprisingly, in the aforesaid reply, the OP No.1 stated that the journey date as 23-08-2020 contrary to its previous stand whereby it has reported the toll cross date as 07-09-2020. Meaning thereby that the date of crossing toll plaza as mentioned by OP No.1 in its online Toll receipt C-1 does not match with its reply C-3, so what to say about their record. As far as reason quoted by the OP No.1 in its reply C-3 while refusing to return the illegal deduction, it is submitted that same is a concocted story. No notification as alleged was ever served on the complainant. As per law, the OP No.1 used to obtain copy of registration certificate of the vehicle while issuing 'Fastag' and also charges proper fee for issuing 'Fastag'. As such, the copy of RC is duly available with the OP No.1. Hence, the story propounded by OP No.1 regarding not providing the copy of vehicle's registration certificate by complainant, is nothing but an abhorrent tactic to deceive the complainant. Since from the date of purchase of 'Fastag' by the complainant, she has crossed the toll plaza of OP No.2 for more than 50 times regarding which proper toll service fee was deducted from her account, as such, it is unbelievable that the OP No.2 does not have the information regarding class of vehicle as alleged by OP No.1 in its reply. Thus from the reply submitted by OP No.1, it is clear that the OP No.1 has acted purely on the directions of OP No.2 and the real beneficiary of illegal deduction is OP No.2. In this way both the OPs jointly caused undue loss to the complainant while providing paid services to her. The aforesaid acts of the OPs are nothing else but clear- cut negligence on its part in providing services to the complainant and it also amounts to unfair trade practice, deceptive trade practice and restrictive trade practice, for which both the OPs are liable and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the High Level enquiry may kindly be initiated to check the illegal, arbitrary deduction of toll service fee of Rs.115/- from the vehicle without crossing the toll and also for charging toll service fee at commercial rates for non-commercial vehicles. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.4,95,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses be also awarded.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the Complainant is baseless and frivolous and deserves to be dismissed at once exhaustive overview of the as the present complaint reveals that present complaint lacks merit and is based on erroneous interpretation of facts as well as laws. It is further averred that         the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on 07.09.2020 at 05.08pm, the complainant received a flash message from OP No.1 regarding deduction of Rs.115/- on account of her crossing Kurali Toll Plaza and it also been stated that at that time the complainant was at her home at Jalandhar and her aforesaid car was also parked in the house. It has further been alleged that, after receiving the flash message, the complainant immediately contacted OP No.1 to know the reason of illegal deductions from her account. It is further averred that the complainant does not come under the ambit of definition of a consumer in relation to the OP No.1 in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Paytm/OP No.1. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant using the services of OPs in the form of Fast Tag provided by OP No.1 and the complainant received a message on 07.09.2020 regarding deduction of Rs.115/- on account of her crossing Kurali Toll Plaza, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and in law against the replying respondent as complainant never made any complaint to any of the official of the replying respondent, hence Complaint deserves dismissal against the replying respondent. It is further averred that the complainant is habitual of filing false and frivolous complaint against the different toll plazas and Fastag service provider banks just to avoid the toll fee. The complainant may kindly be directed to disclose that till today how many complaints she has filed against the different Toll Plazas and Fastag service    provider banks and further may kindly be directed to place on record the relevant record of those complaints. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as no cause of action has arouse in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence complaint may kindly be dismissed on this Score alone. It is further averred that as per policy guidelines of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways as well as National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), Fast tag is to be implemented on every vehicle crossing the toll Plaza of the NHAI throughout India. This work has been allocated to different independent agencies and out of these Paytm i.e. OP No.1 is one of the agency. In the present case Fastag bearing ID No.34161FA820328E400372C840 was issued to complainant by the Paytm i.e. OP No 1. It is further averred that on  23.08.2020 at 10.03 A.M., the vehicle of the complainant bearing Fastag ID No.34161FA820328E400372C840 crossed the toll plaza of the replying respondent through lane no.1 towards Chandigarh and tag was read by the TAG reader in lane automatically and an amount of Rs.50/- was debited to the bank portal. Similarly on same day at 05.31 P.M. the vehicle of the complainant came in lane no.7 towards Ropar and tag was read by the TAG reader in lane automatically and boom barrier of lane went up. It is submitted that there must be gap of at least 5 second in between vehicle to vehicle crossing the boom barrier as system of tag needs its own time for opening and closing the boom. But in the present case it is very important to mention here that when car of the complainant was moving and crossing the boom barrier at the same time one MAV Truck was coming very close behind the car and boom barrier could not fall and the moment the rear portion of the car crossed the barrier and in the meantime front portion of the MAV truck came in the boom barrier. Due to this reason system counted two vehicles as one and this transaction became violation    transaction. After completion this transaction went to the bank Portal. The bank checked the transaction and verified it as To and Fro as vehicle had already done one transaction within 24 hours as mentioned above. So bank credited 20 to toll plaza. But as it was violation transaction. So bank checked the image of the crossing vehicle as MAV Truck because at that time one rear image of the vehicle goes to the bank on checking the image of the MAV truck bank has debited from the user 115 Rupees more. That is to say one time journey ticket of the truck is 135 and 20 Rupees has already been debited from the complainant so, 135-20 =115 rupees was debited by the bank. On merits, it is admitted that on 23.08.2020 at 10:03 A.M., the vehicle of the complainant bearing Fastag ID No.34161FA820328E400372C840 crossed the Toll Plaza      of OP No.2 through Lane No.1 and amount of Rs.50/- was debited and on the same day, at 05:31 PM, the vehicle of the complainant came in Lane No.7, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by all the parties very minutely.    

7                 The complainant has alleged that on 07.09.2020, she received a flash message from OP No.1 regarding the deduction of Rs.115/- on account of her crossing Kurali Toll Plaza on 07.09.2020 at 05:08 PM, whereas on the same day, she was at her home at Jalandhar and the car was parked in her house. It has been alleged by the OPs that due to technical glitch at the end of the OP No.2 on 23.08.2020, the technical system of OP No.2 captured the image of a higher class vehicle instead of the vehicle of the complainant and raised a debit adjustment amount against the complainant’s journey.

8.                It has been admitted by the OP No.2 that on 23.08.2020 at 10:03 A.M., the vehicle of the complainant bearing Fastag ID No.34161FA820328E400372C840 crossed the Toll Plaza          of OP No.2 through Lane No.1 and amount of Rs.50/- was debited and on the same day, at 05:31 PM, the vehicle of the complainant came in Lane No.7. It has been further alleged by the OP No.2 that when the car of the complainant was moving and crossing the Boom Barrier at the same time, one MAV truck was coming very close behind the car and Boom Barrier could not fall and the movement the rear portion of the car crossed the barrier and in the meantime, front portion of the MAV Truck came in the Boom Barrier. Due to this reason, two vehicles were considered as one and the amount was deducted.

9.                Ex.C-1 shows that the money of Rs.115/- was deducted on 07.09.2020 by the OP No.1 from the account of the complainant. The complainant sent email alleging that she never visited the Toll Plaza, but the amount has been deducted. Ex.C-3 shows that the Paytm/OP No.1 has tried to clarify the reason for deduction of the amount. Back of the Ex.C-3 clearly shows that the date of journey of the car of the complainant is 23.08.2020, whereas the OP is alleging the date of journey as 07.09.2020. Ex.C-4 shows that Rs.25/- were deducted on 23.08.2020. Perusal of the Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/2 also shows that these images are of 23.08.2020 time 17:31:36 and 10:03:39. These images nowhere show that both the vehicles i.e. car of the complainant and the alleged heavy vehicle was very near as alleged by the OPs. The statement of paytm shows that the amount has been deducted by the OP No.1 on 23.08.2020 at 10:06:45 am and 17:33:50 pm.

10.              From the documents produced on record by both the parties and the written statement filed by both the parties, this fact is proved that the complainant never travelled on 07.09.2020 and never crossed the Toll Plaza as alleged. It has also been proved that Rs.115/- were deducted from the Wallet of the complainant for no reason and illegally as charges for commercial vehicle, whereas the vehicle of the complainant was non-commercial and that too it crossed the toll on 23.08.2020. As per submission of the complainant during the pendency of the complaint, the OPs have returned the amount of Rs.115/- to the complainant, but he has been harassed for no fault of the complainant. The deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been proved. Both the OPs are negligent and deficient in services by illegally deducting the charges from the account of the complainant as Fastag Charges. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

11.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and both the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

19.02.2024         Member                    Member               President