Car did not cross Toll Plaza but amount was deducted from Fastag, Court orders SBI to refund amount due to lack of service

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ambala (Haryana) bench, consisting of Neena Sandhu (President), Ruby Sharma (Member), and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member), held the State Bank of India (SBI) responsible for unauthorized deductions from the complainant’s Fastag account issued by the bank. The commission found that the deductions occurred even when the complainant’s vehicle did not cross the toll plaza. Consequently, SBI was directed to refund the amount and compensate the complainant.
Complainant’s Grievances
Mr. Sartaj Singh purchased an SBI Fastag for his Toyota Innova from the State Bank of India. Despite driving through Sanwara Toll Plaza and incurring one-way trip charges, the complainant received messages indicating unauthorized debits from his Fastag while his vehicle was parked at home. Multiple unauthorized deductions occurred, leading the complainant to block the Fastag account.
Complaint and Response
The complainant reported the issue to NHAI’s customer care, providing necessary documentation. NHAI requested additional details, including photos of the Registration Certificate (R.C.) and various angles of the vehicle. Despite compliance, the complainant faced further unauthorized deductions after additional toll transactions.
Legal Proceedings
The complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala, Haryana.
Opposing Parties
NHAI argued lack of merit, stating the dispute involved toll deductions by an independent toll plaza. The toll plaza and Qualix Information System LLP raised objections, claiming the complaint lacked merit, was based on false facts, and fell outside the Consumer Protection Act’s jurisdiction. SBI and IDFC First Bank did not appear before the District Commission.
Commission’s Findings
The District Commission established that Rs. 980/- was erroneously deducted from the complainant’s Fastag account, even when the vehicle did not cross the toll plaza. Notably, the toll plaza’s records supported the complainant’s claim. The commission held SBI liable for deficiency in service, emphasizing that the bank should have clarified the situation regarding the deductions.
Verdict
SBI was directed to refund Rs. 980/- to the complainant with interest, pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for mental agony, and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Any refund made by the bank earlier could be deducted from the ordered refund.
Conclusion
The complaint against other parties was dismissed, and the District Commission concluded that SBI’s accountability stemmed from the unauthorized deductions in the Fastag account, emphasizing the bank’s obligation to address such issues promptly.