Unauthorized Transactions From Fastag, Ambala District Commission Directs SBI To Refund Amount, Pay Compensation

Brief Facts:

Mr Sartaj Singh (“Complainant”) purchased an SBI Fastag from the State Bank of India (“SBI”). The Fastag was affixed to the Complainant's Toyota Innova (“Car”). One day, the Complainant drove the vehicle through Sanwara Toll Plaza (“Toll Plaza”) twice, incurring one-way trip charges of Rs. 55/- and Rs. 30/-. However, later, the Complainant received messages of unauthorized debits totalling Rs. 490/- from his Fastag. Notably, during these transactions, the Complainant's vehicle was parked at his residence in Ambala City. There were several other unauthorized deductions from the Fastag, therefore, the Complainant had to block the Fastag Account.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant complained to NHAI's customer care, providing necessary documentation upon request. In response to the complaint, customer care requested the complainant to submit photos of the Registration Certificate (R.C.) and various angles of the vehicle on WhatsApp No. Complying with the request, the Complainant provided the necessary documentation. Later, during a journey to Solan, the Complainant's vehicle again crossed Sanwara Toll Plaza incurring one-way trip charges of Rs. 55/-. Upon returning to Ambala on the same day, Rs. 30/- was deducted from the account. Subsequently, the Complainant was surprised to receive messages indicating unauthorized debits of Rs. 245/- from his Fastag account. Shortly after, the Complainant received a third message confirming the blocking of the Fastag account due to a negative balance. Despite these efforts and subsequent blockage of the account, there were unauthorized deductions totalling Rs. 980/-.

Thereafter, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala, Haryana (“District Commission”).

In response, NHAI argued that the complaint lacked merit as the dispute pertains to toll deductions by the toll plaza, with whom they had no privity of contract. It argued that the toll plaza operated independently, and the alleged toll receipts were issued by the plaza. The toll plaza raised objections, asserting that the complaint lacked merit, was based on false facts, and fell outside the Consumer Protection Act's jurisdiction. It contended that the incidents occurred before their contract with NHAI began. It presented the evidence suggesting the alleged deductions which took place later were refunded to the Complainant. Qualix Information System LLP, on the other hand, argued the misjoinder of parties and lack of privity of contract. It contended that it only provided the technical equipment to the Toll Plaza. SBI and IDFC First Bank didn't appear before the District Commission.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that a total sum of Rs. 980/- (Rs. 490/- on 20.08.2021 and Rs. 490/- on 20.10.2021) was erroneously deducted from the Complainant's Fastag account, a purchase made from SBI. The crucial contention put forth by the Complainant was that during the deduction of these amounts, his vehicle did not cross the toll plaza. In stark contrast, the toll plaza contended that upon scrutinizing toll plaza records, it was established that the Complainant's vehicle did not cross the toll plaza on the disputed dates and times. Therefore, the District Commission held that this essentially implied that the toll plaza corroborated the Complainant's version that despite his vehicle not crossing the toll plaza, an amount of Rs. 980/- was deducted from his fast-tag.

Further, the District Commission held that SBI, being the issuer of the Fastag, should have clarified the situation regarding the deductions from the Fastag account, especially given the toll plaza's stance that it contacted the bank and was informed that a partial refund of Rs. 490/- had been issued to the Complainant. The District Commission noted that despite issuing several notices to the bank, it failed to appear before it.

Crucially, the District Commission held that given that the Complainant's vehicle did not cross the toll plaza, the question of deducting toll tax from his fast-tag account maintained by SBI becomes invalid. Therefore, the District Commission held SBI liable for deficiency in service and directed it to refund the amount of Rs. 980/- to the Complainant along with interest @6% p.a. from the respective dates of deductions, till realization. Further, the District Commission noted that if the bank has made any refund to the Complainant, the bank is at liberty to deduct the same from the refund. Further, it was also directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the Complainant and pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. The Complainant against the rest of the opposite parties was dismissed.

Case Title: Sartaj Singh vs National Highway Authority of India and others

Case No.: CC/372/2021

Advocate for the Complainant: M.M Singh

Advocate for the Respondent: Shri S.S. Garg, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3. None for OP No.4. OPs No.5 and 7 already ex parte. Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for OP No.6.

Click Here To Read/Download Order