Geeta recalls being stopped at the Chandimandir Toll Plaza on her return journey from Kasauli, where she was wrongly charged the full toll despite her exemption under the Divyangjan scheme. (Representational Image, DT Archives)
Shimla, February 01:The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has imposed a penalty on the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for wrongly charging a toll tax of Rs 40 and allegedly humiliating Geeta, an orthopaedically disabled woman, at the Chandimandir Toll Plaza. The Commission has ordered NHAI to compensate the complainant with a sum of Rs 17,000 for the inconvenience and distress caused during the incident.
The complainant, Geeta, a resident of Sector 27, Chandigarh, explained in her petition that she had purchased a brand-new car under the Divyangjan scheme, which is designed to support people with disabilities. According to government policy, her vehicle, marked as an “adapted vehicle” on the registration certificate (RC), was exempt from toll tax. Despite this, she was wrongfully charged Rs 40 at the toll plaza during her journey.
Geeta recounted that on April 28, 2024, while traveling with her family to Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh, she was not charged any toll. However, during her return journey to Chandigarh, she was stopped at the Chandimandir Toll Plaza. Despite presenting her car’s registration certificate (RC), which clearly indicated her vehicle was exempt from toll charges, the toll staff allegedly insisted that she provide a medical certificate or step out of the car and walk in front of them, causing embarrassment and humiliation.
Her counsel argued that despite her vehicle being in the toll-exempt lane, NHAI unlawfully deducted Rs 40 from her FASTag account on April 28, 2024. In response, Geeta immediately contacted NHAI’s customer care and filed a formal complaint regarding both the unauthorized toll deduction and the alleged misbehavior by the toll staff. However, she claimed that her complaint was closed without any resolution. Additionally, she sent a follow-up email on April 29, 2024, but did not receive any response from the authorities.
Despite being served a notice, NHAI failed to appear before the Chandigarh Consumer Commission. As a result, on August 16, 2024, the case proceeded ex-parte, meaning the Commission continued with the proceedings in the absence of the NHAI’s representation, leading to a decision based solely on the complainant’s evidence and arguments.
After thoroughly reviewing the documents presented, the Commission concluded that Geeta had registered her vehicle in full compliance with the necessary regulations and was indeed entitled to toll exemption under government guidelines. The Commission firmly stated, “There was no valid reason to charge any toll tax from the complainant,” affirming her rights to the exemption.
The Commission further emphasized that if Geeta’s vehicle was correctly exempted from the toll tax on her outbound journey to Kasauli, there was absolutely no justification for charging her Rs 40 on the return trip later that same day. This inconsistency in treatment raised serious concerns about the toll booth’s handling of the situation.
The bench, consisting of Surjeet Kaur (Presiding Member) and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), expressed strong disapproval of the toll staff’s actions. They stated, “The complainant has vividly described the distress and humiliation she endured at the toll plaza. When the Government of India introduces policies to aid people with disabilities, such behavior by toll staff—charging tolls in direct violation of established guidelines—not only constitutes an illegal act but also represents gross deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.”
The Commission issued a directive for NHAI to refund the Rs 40 toll amount to the complainant and additionally compensate her with Rs 10,000 for the distress caused. Furthermore, the Commission ordered NHAI to pay Rs 7,000 to Geeta as reimbursement for litigation costs, acknowledging the inconvenience and legal expenses incurred due to the wrongful toll charge.