D.O.F:26/09/2018
D.O.O:20/05/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.159/2018
Dated this, the 20th day of May 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Thomas D Souza M S, aged 58 years,
‘Talent’, Seethangoli,
Ednad Village and Post,
Kasaragod District , 671321 : Complainant
And
1. Ravi Babu,
Toll Manager,
Udupi Tollway Pvt Ltd,
Navyug Talapady, Mangalore,
KNT/Kerala.
2. Rajiv Reddy – CGM(T),
National Highway Authority of India,
SI No 13, 14th KM, Near Depak Bus Stop, : Opposite Parties
Nagasandra Village,
Bengaluru
(Adv: A. Radhakrishnan)
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer
National Highway Authority
Pulikunnu, Kasaragod.
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he travelled to Manglore in his car KL-14 L 4868 on NH 66 in 26/06/2018 about 12.32Pm. There is toll gate at Thalappady, the vehicle is stopped and Opposite Party No:1 collected Rs. 55/- as toll fee. Fly over work in Thokottu and Pumpwell is not completed in such circumstance toll collection is illegal. Vehicle also on que thereby suffered mental agony. He sent a letter dated 19/07/2018. Opposite Party No:1refused to accept notice but Opposite Party No:2 sent false reply. Complainant claims Rs. 2 lakh as compensation from Opposite Parties for mental agony and loss due to illegal stoppage collection of toll free.
2. The Opposite Party No:1 and 2 filed written version. Opposite Party No:1 filed its written version denying the allegation Opposite Party No:2. Filed its written version raising maintainability of complaint.
Opposite Party No:2 submitted that National High way Authority (NHAI) introduced a Fast Tag System, thereby no stoppage, charge is debited by electronics process to avoid que. A notification was published on 12/03/2013 permitting collection of levy for users. The complainant did not use fast tag facility. Opposite Party No:2 not liable to pay any compensation . And there is no deficiency service from Opposite Party No:2 and prayed for dismiss the complainant.
3. The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1 Ext A1 and A2 documents marked from their side. Ext A1 is the receipt for toll fee, Ext A2 is copy of notice.
4. IA 67/2021 is filed to consider the issue of maintainability of complaint since cause of action is on Karnataka State. IA closed subject to consideration at the time of final disposal of the case. The Opposite Party did not adduce any oral evidence. Complainant and Opposite Party heard in detail complainant filed argument notes also.
5. Based on rival contentions following points arise for consideration in the case:-
a) Whether CDRF Kasaragod has territorial jurisdiction to consider the complaint?
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service of Opposite Party in collecting the toll fee?
c) Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If for what reliefs?
Point No:1
The place where the toll booth situated party fall within Karnataka State and Kerala States. Further complainant is permanent resident of Kasaragod in Kerala. Both parties initially raised the question of territorial jurisdiction but did not raise the issue and after considering the case on merits, the CDRC holds that jurisdiction to decide the disputes as above.
7.section 7 of National Highway Act provides for a levy of fee the relevant portion of section read as follows:-
“ Section 7(1) the central Government may, by notification in the official Gazatte, levy fees of such rates as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf for services or benefits rendered in relation to the use of sections of National Highways”.
“Rule 7 (2) such fees when so levied shall be collected in accordance with the rules made under this Act”.
The rules separately provided for departmental fee collection and fee collection through franchisee.
Rule 3 provides for levy of fee. It reads inter alie, as follows:-
“ Rule 3 (1) the Central Government may by notification levy fee for use of any section of National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel forming part of the National Highway as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of these rules.
(2) The collection of fee levied under sub rule(1) of the rule 3, shall commence within fourty five days from the date of completion of the section of National highway, permanent bridge by pass or tunnel, as the case may be, constructed through a public funded project.
8. The complainant has no case that notification published by central Government permitting collection of toll fee by National Highway is without authority without mandate of law nor seek any relief of declaring the notification as illegal. Hence collection of toll fee on the National Highway toll booth is as per law and enforceable. The challenge against the collection of toll fee is not based on any legal tenable grounds. Thus there is no deficiency in service of opposite Parties. The Complainant admits that he is aware of fast tag facility to avoid que and he is at present enjoying the facility for his vehicle. It is a quite natural that Government is entitled to compose reasonable restriction as permitted by law thereby there may be little delay in compliance of restriction in the due process of law and the same will not amount to deficiency in service and hence complainant is not entitled to any compensation.
In the result complaint is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Receipt for toll free
A2- Lawyer Notice
Witness Examined
Pw1- Thomas D’ Souza. M.S
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
