Chandimandir toll plaza authorities, bank to cough up ₹1L for overcharging daily commuter
Complainant used to commute to Panchkula everyday as she worked in the treasury office in the city prior to her retirement in October 2019. As Pinjore is situated within a radius of 10kms from the said toll plaza, she was entitled to a concessional monthly pass of ₹150 to cross the Chandimandir toll
For charging excess toll from a daily commuter, the Himalayan Express Way Limited, which operates the Chandimandir Toll Plaza, NHAI, Panchkula, and ICICI bank, which provides the FASTag facility, have been told to pay punitive damages of ₹1 lakh after being found guilty of “unfair trade practices”.
The district consumer disputes redressal commission, while disposing of a complaint by Anita Kumari of Pinjore, said, “Retention of the excess amount by the toll plaza and bank clearly amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice.”
Kumari, a resident of Pinjore, said she used to commute to Panchkula everyday as she worked in the treasury office in the city prior to her retirement in October 2019. As Pinjore is situated within a radius of 10kms from the said toll plaza, she was entitled to a concessional monthly pass of ₹150 to cross the Chandimandir toll.
On October 31, 2019, an amount of ₹930 was wrongly deducted from her account. She contacted the Chandimandir toll plaza officials as well as ICICI bank staff, but they failed to provide a refund.
“A consumer, as and when uses the toll plaza facility by crossing it in a vehicle without having a valid FASTag having sufficient fund in it, he/she is made to pay double charges. In the present case, the toll plaza deducted a sum of Rs.930 in place of Rs.150/-, in violation of the instructions as contained in the relevant notifications,” observed the district consumer commission, while directing the toll plaza to pay ₹330 to Anita with 9% interest. The toll plaza operators have to pay ₹10,000 to Anita on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her along with ₹5,500 as litigation charges.
Further, Himalayan Express Way Limited was told to deposit ₹80,000 in the account of the poor patient welfare fund (PPWF) as punitive charges. This is to be sent in favour of the director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research & Education, Chandigarh. An amount of ₹20,000 from the punitive damages is to be paid to Anita by both Himalayan Express Way Limited and ICICI bank in equal proportion (i.e. Rs.10,000 each).
Excess money debited owing to technical glitch: Toll plaza & bank
While seeking dismissal of the complaint and terming it “baseless and meritless”, Himalayan Express Way Limited through its director/ managing director, Chandimandir Toll Plaza, said the amount was debited due to a technical glitch in the portal of ICICI bank. They said that due to the said technical glitch, excess amount was debited from the account of 44 other customers. They contended that a sum of ₹600 has already been adjusted out of the excess amount of ₹780 as nothing was charged from the complainant qua the usage of toll plaza by her w.e.f. February 2020 to May 2020 and thus, only a sum of ₹180 is outstanding.
Meanwhile, denying any deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part, ICICI bank contended that the mistake had occurred, at the level of toll plaza, who had treated the monthly pass of the complainant as general pass.
Unfair trade practice is writ large: Commission
“The indulgence by the opposite parties (toll plaza and bank) into unfair trade practice is writ large. Since the opposite parties were prohibited from charging any amount from the local area traffic, more than the prescribed rate, therefore, charging by the opposite parties in excess of the prescribed amount in violation of the provisions contained in the said notification was clearly invalid and illegal,” ruled the district consumer commission.
“ICICI bank has not rebutted and controverted the specific averments of toll plaza qua the occurrence of the technical glitch on its portal, which had led to the deductions of excess amount from 44 other customers. Further, the complainant had lodged the complaint with the bank which failed to resolve the matter. Therefore, both opposite parties, toll plaza and bank, were deficient, while rendering the services to the complainant, for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.”
