- National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) G-5&6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075(Ph.No.01125074100-200), Through its Director.
………….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person with Sh. Jitender Singh, Advocate for the
complainant.
Sh.N.K.Singhal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 given up vide order dated 16.04.2024.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant went to Delhi on 21.02.2018 by his car, via Rohad toll road and respondent no.1 charged Rs.85/-. While going to Delhi, in between village Ismaila and Sampla there was a broken holding lying on the road. The said toll road has deep craters, huge cracks, cow dung cakes were also on road side and there were many illegal cuts with damaged dividers always inviting accidents. Due to above said conditions of the road, the tyre of hiscar was damaged/burst suddenly and the complainant escaped a narrow death. The respondents are bound to provide the good road and are bound jointly or severally to get the complainant’s said loss. But till date, the respondents did nothing and failed to provide basic facilities like water, washroom, proper signboards, reflectors etc. The material used by the said toll road authority is defective, inferior and that of very poor quality, which is below the standard norms of NHAI. The above act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposites parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.4200/- on account of tyre charges, Rs.500/- for wheel alignment & balancing alongwith toll receipt payment of Rs.85/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant, as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties but the same did not receive back either served or unserved and as such after expiry of statutory period of 30 days, opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.11.2018 of this Forum. However, the said exparte order was set aside on 26.04.2022. Opposite party No.1 was given up by the complainant vide his statement dated 16.04.2024. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant has made vague, generalized and false averments without mentioning the KM stone number between which he had faced alleged difficulties or irregularities. Material particulars regarding the place, KM stone of the alleged difficulties faced by the complainant have not been mentioned by him so the alleged irregularities could not be identified. National highways are being maintained as per the concessionaire agreement by the executing agencies and they are under contractual obligation to operate and maintain the respective Highway. Regular checks are conducted in accordance with the conditions stipulated under the concessionaire agreement by the designated agencies regarding the upkeep of maintenance of national highway by the concessionaire and all complaints regarding the same are attended promptly. Averments made in the complaint are false and frivolous and are made for extracting money from the opposite party. There is no negligence on the part of opposite party No.2 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 25.01.2019. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also tendered documents Ex. C6 & Ex.C7 in additional evidence and closed hisadditionalevidence on 19.07.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed his evidence on 26.04.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant made a statement on dated 26.04.2022 that a document Ex.C8 be read in evidence instead of Ex.C7 which was wrongly placed on file. The main contention of the complainant is that due to non-maintenance of toll road, tyreof his car burst and complainant had to spend Rs.4400/- on purchase of new tyre and also spent other amount on repair. To prove its contention, complainant has placed on record copy of L.C report Ex.C5, copy of bills Ex.C4 and Ex.C8. But the thorough perusal of the documents shows that the L.C. report was issued in some other case titled JyotiVs. National Highways Authority of India of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jhajjar. There is no report of tyre damage/burst on the file. Moreover, the date of incident is 21.02.2018, whereas the tyre was purchased on 21.04.2018i.e. after two months.Hence it cannot be believed that the tyre purchased was related to the loss suffered on 21.02.2018 because a burst tyre cannot run for two months. Moreover the repair bill is also of 22.01.2019 i.e. after one year of accident.Hence it cannot be believed that he suffered loss on 21.02.2018. Complainant has not placed on record any authentic evidence to prove his case. As such, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. 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:
16.07.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
…………………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
