Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 178
Instituted on : 29.03.2023
Decided on : 09.02.2024.
Sunil Kumari age 50 years, w/o Sh. RanbirSingh R/o VPO Kharawar Pana Jatan, Rohtak-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- PAYTM(One 97 Communications Ltd.), Skymark One, Shop no.1, Ground Floor, Tower-D, Plot No.H-10B, Sector 98, Noida, UP201301 through its Manager/authorized representative.
- National highways Authority of India, G 5 & 6 Dabri-Gurugaon Rd. Sector 10 Dwarka, Delhi 110075.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.DivyamPanghal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that she purchased a Fastag for her car bearing no.HR12N7263 from the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is the NHAI which is responsible for all the toll plazas on highways and collection of toll fees from vehicles throughout India. On 22.03.2023 the complainant was at her home and her car was also with her but she was shocked to see that in the morning at 12:42 AM there had been a deduction of an amount of Rs.30/- from her PaytmFastag wallet on account of a visit to Dighal toll Plaza on RohtakJhajjar road. She immediately intimated the customer care of opposite party No.1 and she was given an assurance that the transaction shall be immediately reversed. Whereas the representatives of opposite party No.2 did not even bother to listen to her complaint and ignored the same. Till date there has been no reversal of the incorrectly deducted amount and every time the complainant has tried to contact the opposite parties,she has been denied on one pretext or the other. Hence the opposite parties have rendered unfair trade practice and there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.30/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of invoice and also to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.100000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party no.2 through registered post received back with the track report that the same was delivered but none was appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and as such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.05.2023 of this Commission. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that as per the complainant she was at her home on 23.03.2023 and her car was also at her residence and was not being used for that particular time. It is further submitted that upon request made by the complainant regarding the deduction of Rs.30/- from her PaytmFastag Wallet, the opposite party No.1 took into cognizance the said issue and took necessary steps for resolving the same. During the course of investigation, the opposite party No.1 approached the concerned toll plaza for validation and discovered that the said deduction was nothing but a mere technical issue of misreading of fastag scanner. Such technical issue occurs in case where the fastag readers scans/reads the fast tag incorrectly. The present case filed by the complainant is also one where there has been a mere technical glitch/error where no human intervention is involved. The alleged amount of Rs.30/- was refunded back to the complainant’s wallet on 17.04.2023 by the opposite party No.1. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in favour of the opposite party No.1.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on 19.06.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A, documents Ex.OP1 and closed his evidence on 10.10.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.Through this complaint complainant has submitted that on 22.03.2023 an amount of Rs.30/- was deducted from her paytm fast tag wallet on account of visit to Dighal toll plaza onRohtakJhajjarRoad. As per complainant her vehicle was at her home. So she immediately approached to the respondent no.1 & 2 and lodged the complaint regarding the alleged deduction. The amount has not been refunded in the fast tag wallet account of the complainant. On the other hand, respondent no.2 was proceededexparte. Respondent No.1 has filed written statement and affidavit before this Commission and also submitted the written arguments on 01.12.2023. It has been submitted in the affidavit Ex.RW1/A that an amount has been deducted from the account of complainant by the respondent no.1 and after receiving the complaint, they took necessary steps for resolving the issue. It has been further submitted that during the course of investigation the respondent no.1 approached the concerned toll plaza for the validation of the complainant and discovered that the amount has been deducted and the complainant of the complainant was found genuine. From perusal of the affidavit it has been clearly established that there is a technical defect in the system of the opposite party no.1 due to which an amount of Rs.30/- has been wrongly deducted from the fast tag wallet of the complainant. It has been further submitted by the opposite party no.1 that the amount has been refunded on dated 17.04.2023 in the fast tag wallet of the complainant. From the deduction and returning of amount, it has been clearly established that the mechanism of fastag has not been properly installed by the opposite party No.1 due to which the scanner at the toll plaza could not identify the tag and wrongly deducted the amount from the account of complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. Due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1, the complainant had to file the present unwanted litigation as the amount was refunded by the opposite party No.1 on dated 17.04.2023 i.e. after filing the present complaint on dated 29.03.2023.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainantwithin one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) from the date of decision till its realisation to the complainant.
8. 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:
09.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
