Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/748/2016

The Chief Election Officer & Secretary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Babita Wadhwani D/O Late Ghanshyam Da Wadhwsani - Opp.Party(s)

R. K. Sharma

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 748/2016

 

The Chief Election Officer & Secretary, State Election Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Babita Wadhwani r/o House No. 31/62/06-09 Varun Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 16.01.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. R.K.Sharma counsel for the appellants

Respondent present in-person

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the

2

 

learned District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd dated 5.5.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that matter relates to election process hence, jurisdiction of the Forum is barred. They have not committed any deficiency. CD was given to the consumer as it was available and no loss has been caused to the respondent.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that she paid Rs.100/- for having the information but incomplete information was given to her. It is true that she has took the information from other sources but it cannot be said to be authentic information. As she was not having correct information she could not contact the voters. Furnishing incomplete information is deficiency in the service.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellants and respondent in-person and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent has

 

3

 

paid Rs.100/- for having information about 20 polling booths but the appellants have only furnished the information about only 16 polling booths and this fact cannot be disputed as before the Forum below the CD was presented and in presence of counsel of both the parties it has been noted that it contains information only about 16 polling booths. It has also not been objected before the Forum below that CD is not a genuine one. Hence, deficiency is proved on face of it.

 

The contention of the appellants is that it relates to the election matters hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction and reliance has been placed on the same judgment which has been relied by the Forum below passed in First Appeal No.34/2007 Jaspal Singh Vs. Chief Election Commission of India passed by Stte Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh where the Commission has held that preparation of electoral roll is a statutory duty which is not the case here. Here charges has been paid for having information but incomplete information has been furnished. The appellant has also relied upon IV (2008) CPJ 184 (NC) Adwatia Prasad Biswal Vs. J.Bag & anr. where no fee was chargeable inspite of this the person has deposited the fees on his own will which is not the case here.

4

 

It is admitted case of the parties that the fee was chargeable and as per the findings of the Forum below incomplete information has been furnished to the complainant. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held that the appellants were deficient in service and in view of the above compensation has rightly been allowed.

 

In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm