A consumer commission in Haryana has mandated a toll plaza and its associated construction firm to compensate a man with Rs 1,300, alongside an additional Rs 5,500 for damages and costs. This decision follows allegations that he was incorrectly charged Rs 130, rather than the appropriate toll of Rs 65.
The ruling was made by a panel consisting of President R.K. Dogra and members Rekha Chaudhary and Vineet Kaushik of the Panipat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. They concluded that the practice of charging a toll twice—once through cash and again via a deduction from the complainant’s Paytm wallet—constituted a clear failure in service.
The commission remarked on September 29 that the evidence presented by the complainant remained unchallenged by the respondents, who failed to provide any counter-evidence despite being given multiple chances to do so. The commission emphasized that the complainant successfully substantiated his claims with compelling evidence.
It was established that within a mere five-minute period, the complainant had been charged double the standard penalty fare of Rs 65, amounting to Rs 130. The commission noted that it was the obligation of the respondents to refund this amount due to the erroneous charge, which they declined to do.
The issue arose in June 2023 when the complainant was traveling with his family towards Gohana. An employee at the toll plaza allegedly informed him that his Paytm wallet had insufficient funds, despite his assertion that it had enough balance. Consequently, he was charged Rs 130, which included a double toll charge and a Rs 65 penalty.
Shortly thereafter, he received a notification indicating that Rs 65 had also been deducted from his Paytm wallet. Upon seeking a refund from the toll plaza staff, he claimed his request was met with refusal and verbal abuse. After sending a legal notice to the toll plaza without receiving any resolution, he proceeded to file a consumer complaint against both the toll plaza and the construction company, citing inadequate service and unfair business practices.
The respondents contested the complainant’s account, asserting that the FASTag system was malfunctioning and that the balance was not displayed correctly after scanning. They claimed the complainant had confirmed this issue and subsequently paid the toll, suggesting he had not sought a refund prior to lodging his complaint.
However, the commission determined that the complainant had provided sufficient documentation, including a screenshot of the Paytm transaction and the toll receipt, which documented the wrongful deduction. The commission ruled that the refusal to refund the improperly taken amount constituted a failure in service.
Regarding the maintainability of the case, the commission affirmed that the complaint was valid, noting that the complainant had presented “cogent and convincing evidence,” while the respondents did not substantiate their claims.
This ruling highlights the rights of consumers to seek redress for duplicate toll charges when payment records support their claims. It also emphasizes the responsibility of toll operators to promptly reimburse erroneous deductions and that unsupported defenses cannot undermine a consumer’s grievance.
Consumers encountering similar issues are encouraged to reach out to the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana: 1800-180-2087) or contact the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for support.
In related news, a holiday company has denied a hotel booking and delayed a membership refund, leading to a man receiving Rs 1 lakh in compensation. Additionally, a woman won Rs 38,000 after her rocking chair, purchased for her elderly parents, developed cracks. Furthermore, a widow received Rs 5 lakh after her late husband’s drowning death claim was initially rejected by his insurer three years prior.
Jagriti Rai is a member of The Indian Express (Digital), focusing on the interplay between law, gender, and societal issues. With a dedicated legal desk, she aims to simplify complex legal concepts and explore how judicial and legislative changes influence citizens’ lives.
Her expertise encompasses socio-legal matters, with an emphasis on how legal advancements affect gender rights and marginalized communities. With over four years in digital and mainstream media, she has honed her reporting skills across various platforms, including The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar.
Academically, she holds a Post-Graduate degree in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication and a Master’s degree in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University, equipping her with the knowledge to analyze historical and cultural contexts influencing social structures and legal developments.
