#SainikWelfareNews
Join this channel membership:
/ @sainikwelfarenews
Whatsapp No.: 8077969277
Video Tags: Complainant Ajanya Chaudhary filed a complaint against Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986.
The matter presented by the complainant in brief is such that the complainant is presently serving as a Flying Offr in IAF. He reached Jaipur on 25.07.2015 during his authorised lve and he proceeded from Jaipur to Sikar through the veh No. RJ23CA0026 which is regd in the name of Father of the complainant. The Complainant showed his Service Identity Card to Party No. 3 when Party No. 3 asked for toll fee on Akhepura toll plaza at 20:41 Hrs. However, Party No. 3 refused to admit and forced the complainant to pay Rs. 35 vide receipt No. 362414. Though the complainant crossed the Tatiyawas toll Plaza on the same day while driving from Jaipur to Sikar and he was exempted from toll charges after explaining the toll exemption rules in vogue. But Partry No. 3 collected the toll charges unlawfully and detained the complainant. This act by Party No. 3 caused enough mental and physical harassment of the complainant. A legal notice to this effect was also served by the complainant to Party No. 3, however no satisfactory reply was provided. Forceful collection of toll fee from the complainant and denial of satisfactory reply by Party No. 3 is an act of inferiority in service.
Therefore, it is requested to admit the complaint of the complainant and refund of Rs. 35 as toll fee should be ensured alongwith mental, physical, social and financial loss charges amounting to Rs. 80,000 and litigation charges for filing the complaint.
Party No. 2 further added to their reply that the complainant was utilizing the car regd in the name of his father, taking advantage of his being in Defence Services, despite of not having an authorised veh on authorised duty for toll exemption which was not due to him as per rules in vogue.
Therefore, no inferiority in service was accorded by Party No. 02 and hence the complain lodged by complainant against Party No. 2 should be disregarded.
“Exemption under the Indian Toll (Army and Airforce) Act, 1901 is available only to the persons who are ‘on duty’ and does not pertain to retired personals. No exemption is available on use of personal vehicle if it is not used for discharging purpose and duty even if it accompanies the said official. The exemption is available only on production of pass as specified in the Indian Toll (Army &
Airforce) Rules, 1942.”
10. Statement of Party No. 2 is that according to NHAI OM dated 17.06.2014 clause No 02, according to Indian Toll (Indian Air Force & Indian Army) Act-1901, exemption is only available for on duty defence person and not to retired employees. There is no exemption for personal vehs means pvt vehs are not exempted from toll taxes. We do not confer upon the objection raised by Party No. 2 since in this regard the complainant has produced a circular dated 21.10.2014 issued by Deptt of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Laws & Justice which states that
“Ministry of Law and Justice have indicated that Indian Tolls (Army & Airforce) Act 1901 is a special Act which over rides general acts such as National Highways Act 1956 and private vehicles of the officers, soldiers
And airmen of regular forces are exempted from paying toll irrespective Of whether they are on duty or not.”
In this circular, marking Indian Toll (Army & Airforce) Act 1901, it is stated that Indian Toll (Army & Airforce) Act 1901 is a special Act which over rides NHAI Act-1956 and provides exemption to soldiers of Army and Airforce and their personal vehs whether they are on duty or not. This circular was not challenged by Party No. 2 and it is submitted that even if wrong toll tax collection has been implemented by employees of Party No. 3 than a penalty of Rs. 50/- should be devised as per Indian Tolls (Army & Airforce) Act 1901 section 5.
A sum of Rs. 10,000/- against mental agony to the complainant by Party No. 2 and 3 is found suitable. And directions to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in State Consumer Welfare Fund, Jaipur by Party No. 3 for this act is found suitable. In this way, on the basis of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is admissible.
ORDER
Apropos, Complaint by Complainant against Party No 2 and 3 solely and jointly is accepted and Party No. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs. 35 collected against toll tax to the complainant within one month of issue of this order. In addition, complainant is to be reimbursed with a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation charges. Further, Party No. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in Sate Consumer Welfare Fund, Jaipur.
Complain against Party No. 1 is hereby dissolved.
5 окт 2024
