₹4,000 relief for motorist wrongly fined at toll plaza | Chandigarh News


₹4,000 relief for motorist wrongly fined at toll plaza
The dispute dates back to June 17, 2022, when Singh was traveling from Chandigarh to Jalandhar

Chandigarh: A motorist penalised at a toll plaza despite maintaining a positive FASTag balance has won a consumer dispute, with the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordering a refund and ₹4,000 in compensation.The commission directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Behram toll plaza, and the payment aggregator to refund ₹100 to the complainant, Harminder Singh, alongside ₹4,000 for mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses.The dispute dates back to June 17, 2022, when Singh was traveling from Chandigarh to Jalandhar. At the Behram toll plaza, he was charged ₹200—comprising the toll fee and a fine—for an alleged insufficient FASTag balance.Singh maintained his wallet held a positive balance of ₹210 at the time. After emailing NHAI without resolution, he filed a consumer complaint alleging the penalty violated official FASTag guidelines.The payment aggregator contested the claim, arguing that ₹150 of the balance served as a mandatory security deposit unavailable for toll payments. It further stated that the prescribed time limit to initiate a chargeback had expired.Rejecting the defence, the commission noted that NHAI circulars permit vehicles to pass through toll plazas as long as the FASTag wallet balance is non-negative, with mechanisms in place to recover any subsequent dues.The forum observed that Singh provided documentary proof of his positive balance and the disputed transaction, whereas NHAI and the toll plaza failed to offer a satisfactory justification. Both NHAI and the toll operator were proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear despite receiving notices.Holding the payment aggregator accountable, the commission ruled that as a service provider, it was obligated to align operations with NHAI instructions and clearly inform consumers of account conditions. It added that the expiry of a chargeback window cannot extinguish liability for a clear deficiency in service.



Source link

About The Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *