DCDRC orders SBI to refund amount and compensate litigant for illicit transactions from FASTag account

DCDRC orders SBI to refund amount and compensate litigant for illicit transactions from FASTag account

Directs the bank to pay around Rs. 11,000 to the petitioner

The Ambala (Haryana) bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has held the State Bank of India (SBI) guilty of unauthorized deductions from the complainant’s FASTag account.

The bench comprising Neena Sandhu (President), Ruby Sharma (Member), and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) noted that the amount was deducted from the complainant’s account at a time when his car did not even cross the toll plaza. Consequently, it directed the SBI to refund the amount to the complainant and compensate him.

The complainant, Sartaj Singh had purchased an SBI FASTag, which was affixed to his Toyota Innova car.

Singh drove the vehicle through Sanwara Toll Plaza twice, incurring one-way trip charges of Rs.55 and Rs.30.

However, later he received messages of unauthorized debits totaling Rs.490 from his FASTag account. During these transactions, the complainant’s vehicle was parked at his residence in Ambala City. Since there were several other unauthorized deductions, Singh blocked the FASTag account.

Thereafter, he complained to the customer care department of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), providing necessary documentation.

In response, the department requested Singh to submit photos of the Registration Certificate (R.C.) and various angles of the vehicle on a WhatsApp number. The complainant complied with the request.

Later, during a journey to Solan, the complainant’s vehicle again crossed the Sanwara Toll Plaza incurring a one-way trip charge of Rs.55.

On returning to Ambala on the same day, Rs.30 was deducted from his FASTag account. Subsequently, he received messages indicating unauthorized debits of Rs.245. Shortly after, he received another message confirming the blocking of the FASTag account due to a negative balance. Despite his efforts and subsequent blockage of the account, unauthorized deductions of Rs.980 were made.

Aggrieved by the situation, Singh filed a consumer complaint with the DCDRC.

The NHAI argued that Singh’s complaint lacked merit as the dispute pertained to toll deductions by the toll plaza, with whom they had no privity of contract. It stated that the toll plaza operated independently, and the alleged receipts were issued by the toll plaza.

On the other hand, the toll plaza raised objections asserting that the complaint lacked merit. Based on false facts, it fell outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. It contended that the incidents occurred before their contract with the NHAI began. It presented the evidence suggesting the alleged deductions, which took place later, were refunded to the complainant.

However, Qualix Information System LLP argued the misjoinder of parties and lack of privity of the contract. It contended that it only provided the technical equipment to the toll plaza.

Meanwhile, neither the SBI nor the IDFC First Bank appeared before the District Commission.

The DCRDC noted that a sum of Rs.980 (Rs.490 on 20.08.2021 and Rs.490 on 20.10.2021) was erroneously deducted from Singh’s FASTag account - a purchase made from SBI.

The contention put forth by the complainant was that during the deduction of the said amounts, his vehicle did not cross the toll plaza.

Upon scrutinizing the records, the toll plaza admitted that the complainant’s vehicle did not cross the toll plaza on the disputed dates and times. Thus, the Commission held that it 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 FASTag.

The DCDRC held that being the issuer of the FASTag, the SBI should have clarified the situation regarding the deductions, especially since the toll plaza contacted the bank and was informed that a partial refund of Rs.490 was issued to the complainant. It noted that despite being issued several notices, the bank failed to appear before the Commission.

The DCRDC held that since Singh’s vehicle did not cross the toll plaza, the question of deducting toll tax from his FASTag account maintained by the SBI, was invalid. It held the bank liable for deficiency in service and directed it to refund the amount of Rs.980 to the complainant along with interest at 6 percent per annum from the respective dates of deductions, till the realization.

The Commission noted that if the bank had made any refund to the complainant, it was at liberty to deduct the amount from the refund. The SBI was also directed to pay Rs. 7,000 as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and Rs.3,000 as litigation expenses borne by him.