BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI
Complaint Case No. 173 of 2020
Date of Institution: 20.11.2020
Date of Decision: 31.05.2022
Mangej son of Shri Balwan, resident of villae Badala, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Manager, Rohad Toll Plaza, NH 10, Ch. Sir Chhotu Ram Nagar, Haryana 124501.
- Secretary/chairman, NHAI Headquarters, National Highways Authority of India, G 5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, Delhi, 110075.
- Secretary/superintendent, Ministry of Road Transport Highways & Shipping “Transport Bhawan” 1, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
…....Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
Before: - Sh. Vijay Singh, President.
Mrs. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present: None for the complainant .
OPs already exparte.
ORDER:
Mangej (hereinafter referred to as “The complainant”) has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite parties(hereinafter referred to as OP) stating that on 29.10.2020 he was going from Bhiwani to Delhi in his car bearing registration no.HR16R8417 Hyundai I20 having fastag. At 8:35 hours he reached at Rohad Toll Plaza, Near Rohtak. The operator of the toll plaza informed him that toll fare has not been charged through fastag system and demanded Rs.130/- cash i.e. double fee as non fastag user but he requested the operator that fastag is fitted on his car hence the amount of toll fee must have been charged through fastag but he did not pay any heed and thus he had to pay Rs.130/- as Toll fee to cross the said toll plaza. That after crossing the toll plaza he parked his car on one side of the road and contacted in the office of Manager of the Toll Plaza, where a clerk showed him showed him that Rs.65/- had been charged as toll fare through his paytm account vide transaction ID3497380 but depite that clerk did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and denied to refund Rs.130/- manually charged from him. That a receipt of Rs. 130/- paid by him vide ticket No. T39627B8 Operator 60357 is attached herewith Complainant has further averred in his complaint that he employee of the Toll plaza misbehaved with him. That he kept on standing on one side of the road to contact to the National Highway Authority Helpline, and reported the matter to the Toll Plaza Helpline and they asked him to contact to the staff of Rohad Toll Plaza, who will refund the amount to the complainant but by that time he came to his house in Bhiwani. That when he contacted to the office of National Highway Authority they asked him to contact through email or thorugh the portal of public grievances and within 7 days your grievance will be resolved, but his complaint was not solved till 20.11.2020 and status of the complaint is still showing as under process and that such negligence has caused mental, physical and financial problems to the complainant and thus he deserves to be compensated Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5500/-typing and mail charges etc.
2. Notice to the complaint was given to OPs, Sh. Sachin Ahlwat appeared in person on behalf of OP no.1 on 08.01.2021, whereas despite expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice through RC, none turn up on behlaf of OP no.2&3, hence they were proceeded against ex parte.
3. On 04.02.2021 Sh. Bijender Pal who was authorized by OPs appeared before the Commission and filed written submission on behlaf of OP no.1 and admitted that on 29.10.2020 Hyundai car bearing registration no. HR16R8417 passed the Rohad Toll Plaza at 8:35AM but due to some reasons the toll fee could not be deducted through fastag because it did not read the vehicle when it entered in the lane and the fastag of the vehicle was being shown by the system as “Blacklist” and that is why the occupied of the car was asked to pay Rs.130/- as double the fee, as non fastag user as the vehicle passes through fastag lane and receipt of Rs. 130/- was issued to driver of the car. It is also admitted that Rs.65/- as toll tax fee was also deducted through fastag system later on. That on recipt of legal notice through counsel of the complainant, the counsel was contacted and double fee charged i.e. Rs.130/- have already been refunded through Paytm on the mobile no.9355666177 of counsel. Photocopy of the receipt is attached with the reply. It is further stated that on inquiry it was found that none of the employee of the toll plaza misbehaved with the complainant.
4. To prove its case, after tender in evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5, complainant closed his evidence on 18.03.2022, whereas Bijender Pal, Ship Incharge closed his evidence after tender Annexure R1 to R3 on dt.02.04.2021.
Complainant’s evidence:
C-1: Details for registration number
C-2: Replying to @ NHAI official
C-3: Vehicle detail
C-4: Paytm receipt
C-5: G.mail documents
Opposite party evidence:
R-1: Letter to Avneesh Bajaj Authorized Signatory dated 18.11.2020
R-2: Paytm receipt of Rs.130/-
R-3: Letter dated 2.12.2019
5. Thereafter, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted his written submission on 20.08.2021 and again on 30.05.2022. I have gone through the complaint and evidence of both side. The main grievances of counsel for the complainant was that despite debited Rs.65/- by fastag of his car bearing No.HR16R8417, complainant was forged to pay double fee being none fastag user by the operator of the Rohad Toll Plaza and that complainant has been harassed mentally and his valuable time has been wasted due to aforesaid act of the OP which amounts to deficiency in service.
6. We have gone through the complaint and connected documents. The main grievances of counsel for the complainant is that on 29.10.2020 at about 8:35AM when abovesaid car of complainant pass Rohad toll Plaza despite charging Rs. 65/- by fast tag, the complainant was forced to pay Rs.130/- by the operator of the toll plaza and when he reported the matter in the office of Manager,, Rohad Toll Plaza then no attention was paid to resolve the grievances of the complaint, but this whole submission as well as complaint of the complainant is false as he has not come in the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts to mislead the Commission by presenting the concocted story. Though it is not in dispute that on 29.10.2020 at 8:35AM car bearing registration No.HR16R8417 of complainant having fastag crossed the Rohad Toll Plaza. It is also not in dispute that the driver of the car was passing from the fastag line, when complainant was about to pass the toll plaza, due to some technical reasons, toll fare/ charges were not deducted from the account of complainant by Fastag and thus as per notification No.NHAI/PIU-RTK/FASTag/19-20/3571 dt. 02.12.2019 annexure R3 double fee was charged from the complainant/driver of car as non fastag users passes from fastag lane. Had fastag was able to read the vehicle then Rs.65/- were to be charged as toll fee from the complainant. OP no.1 has placed on record Annexure R2 which is a receipt of Rs. 130/- regarding charges of user fee manually and Ex.R1 which is correspondance between OPs which shows that matter has been discussed with complainant who agreed to close the issue because he admit the fact that the fastag did not read as the vehicle entered in the fastag lane and thus user was requested to pay cash. He was issued manual ticket. As per OP after crossing the plaza by complainant about 3-4 hours fastag transaction was also completed. There is another important document Annexure C4 which is placed on record by the complainant himself. This document shows that fastag transaction was completed at 11:50:56 hours and Rs.65/- fastag toll fare for the vehicle ofcomplainant was deducted, Annexure C4 makes the things clear that Rs.65/- as tollfare was deducted at 11:50:56 not at 8:35 hrs. as claimed by complainant and specifically mention in his complaint.
7. Complainant has taken a specific plea that after crossing the toll plaza at 8:35 hrs he parked his car on one side of the toll plaza and reported the matter to the office of Manager of the Toll plaza where clerk showed him deducted Rs.65/- by Fastag but this plea of complainant is totally false because by that time fastag system did not read the vehicle entry and thus manually Rs.130/- were charged from Driver and issued as receipt. The Fastag deducted Rs.65/- as toll fare after about 3:25 hour i.e. at 11:50:56 hours of the incident and this fact was very much in the knowledge of the complainant that at 8:35 hours fastag did not read the vehicle and thus no toll fee was charged through system but when he came to know that despite charging Rs. 130/- manually, Rs. 65/- has also been charged through Fastag, from his account then he contacted the authority who assured him to solve the issue and complainant also agreed to close the issue, but he did’t do this. By taking the advantage of this situation, he filed this complaint by misrepresenting the facts.
8. OP no.1 has already refund Rs. 130/- through paytm account on Mobile No. 9355666177 of counsel for complainant, but this fact has been concealed intentionally by the complainant. Despite that complainant did not withdraw his complaint. This shows that complainant wanted to scandlize the matter unnecessarily.
9. After going through the evidence on file of both side and the written submission of counsel for complainant, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove that operator of the Rohad Toll Plaza charged Rs.130/- manually from complainant despited deducting Rs.65/- toll fees by Fastag at 8.35 hour on 29.10.2020 and also failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP.
10. So finding no merit in the complaint, the same stands dismissed.Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission.
Dated: - 31.05.2022
(Harisha Mehta) (Sh. Vijay Singh)
Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
