DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                        Consumer Complaint No.26 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  11.01.2016                                         Date of decision   :  04.10.2016

Shakti Singh son of R.S. Chauhan, resident of Flat No.401, GH-20, Sector 20, Panchkula, District Panchkula.

 ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

The Director GMR Ambala-Chandigarh Expressway Pvt. Ltd.  Toll Plaza @ 23.79 on NH-22 through its Director.

                                                           ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14

of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Mandeep Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Deepak Arora, CRO of the OP in person.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant, Shakti Singh son of R.S. Chauhan, resident of Flat No.401, GH-20, Sector 20, Panchkula, District Panchkula, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             On 20.12.2015 the complainant alongwith his family was going from Panchkula to Kurukshetra and at 9.50 AM they reached at Toll Plaza of the OP at Dappar. Receipt No.01-04826672 for Rs.54/- was issued by the OP for up and down journey. The complainant came back from Kurukshetra and  reached the Toll Plaza at about 8.50 PM and when he showed the return receipt to the person at duty who returned it on the ground that the time of return has already over and asked the complainant to get the fresh receipt.  The complainant asked the person to check the receipt properly as it was valid till 9.5AM on 21.12.2015 but the person on duty started misbehaving with the complainant and also used unparliamentarily language. The complainant was forced to take fresh receipt by paying Rs.36/- vide receipt No.01-10-857948 at 20.52 on 20.12.2015. Due to aforesaid act of the OP, the complainant has suffered lot of mental tension and harassment.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.36/-; to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment and humiliation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OP by filing written statement in which it had raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as he has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant has not mentioned the number of vehicle for which he got issued receipts from Toll Plaza and has also not proved his ownership of the vehicle. The complainant has not made any complaint at the Toll Plaza nor approached the police for any misbehavior by the toll collector. The toll booth and toll lanes are under CCTV vigilance but the recordings are preserved for 15 days only.  On merits, the OP has denied that on 20.12.2015 the complainant alongwith his family reached toll plaza of the OP and receipt for Rs.54/- as up and down journey was issued.  Thus, denying other averments of the complaint the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of receipts Ex.C-1 and C-2.   In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepak Arora, CRO Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the receipt issued by the OP was valid for 24 hours and an amount of Rs.54/- was charged for up and down journey. However, the staff of the OP did not honour the receipt and forced the complainant to pay for fresh receipt which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

6.             On the other Mr. Deepak Arora, CRO of the OP has argued that the complainant has not disclosed the number of the vehicle for which he has got issued the receipts. The complainant has also not been able to produce any complaint to the Toll Manager or to the police regarding any misconduct of its official on duty. The receipts so produced by the complainant have been issued for different vehicles.

7.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral submission of the parties. We find force in the submissions made by the CRO of OP. The receipts i.e. Ex.C-1 and C-2 placed on record by the complainant,  proves that the said receipts were issue for two different vehicles. Moreover the complainant being an Advocate was well acquainted with the procedure but he did not make any efforts to make any complaint. No material documents or complaint has been placed on record to prove his allegations. The complainant did not even attempt to complain to the senior authorities of the OP. Moreover the complainant has filed the present case, when the CCTV footage had automatically been deleted by the OP.   Thus, in the absence of any complaint to any authority and CCTV footage, we find that the complainant has been failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

8.             Accordingly in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no deficiency of services had been committed by the OPs.  Hence the present complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.  

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 21.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 04.10.2016    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member