STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Jaspal Singh s/o late Sh. Niranjan Singh r/o 2542 Mari Wala Town Manimajra, Chandigarh

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.           Chief Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Bhavan New Delhi.

2.           State Election Commission of U.T. Chandigarh, New Deluxe Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3.           Returning Officer M.C. Elections Ward No.25 at Govt. Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh. [Service of respondents No.1 and 3 dispensed with vide order dated 10.1.2012.]

              ....Respondents/OPs

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Appellant in person

                   Sh. Sanjeev Ghai, Adv. for respondent No.2

Service of respondents No.1 and 3 dispensed with vide order dated 10.1.2012.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This is complainant’s appeal against dismissal of his complaint, in limine, by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide order dated 19.1.2007.  The appeal was earlier dismissed by this Commission vide orders dated 27.2.2007.   The complainant filed a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission, which was accepted and the orders passed by this Commission were set aside vide orders dated 30.11.2011, and the case was remitted back to this Commission to decide it afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both the parties.

2.                     The complainant has filed the complaint before the ld. District Forum alleging that in order to contest the elections from Ward No.25, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, he  purchased voters list (Annexure C-7) from OP-2 by paying Rs.767/-, regarding which a receipt (Annexure C-6) was issued.   He, however, found the list (Annexure C-7) defective because thousands/so many voters were enlisted therein for more than one vote.  According to him, he made a representation/request to the OPs in this respect but they failed to correct the list and this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  He, therefore, filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and prayed for a compensation of Rs.18.00 lacs on account of losses due to deficient services and unfair trade practice of the OPs.

3.                     The complaint was not admitted for regular hearing and was dismissed in limine vide impugned order dated 19.1.2007 against which the complainant has filed the present appeal.

4.                     The appeal filed by the complainant was not admitted for regular hearing and was dismissed in limine vide order dated 27.2.2007 against which the complainant filed a revision petition upon which as per order dated 30.11.20011, the revision petition was allowed and this Commission was directed to decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.  We have afforded opportunity to both the parties as directed by the Hon’ble National Commission. 

5.                     We have heard the appellant in person and ld. Counsel for respondent No.2.

6.                     There is no dispute about it that the complainant wanted to contest the Municipal Corporation elections from ward No.25, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, as a candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party and, therefore, purchased Annexure C-7, the voters list, by paying Rs.767/- vide receipt (Annexure C-6).  So far as sale of Annexure C-7 is concerned, the complainant, being a purchaser of goods, would be a consumer.  It is not the case of the complainant if the voters list maintained  by the OPs is a different one than the one, copy of which has been supplied to him.  It is also not his case if the voters list for Ward No.25 was not supplied to him in full or they charged an excess amount for the same than necessary.  There was, therefore, no deficiency on the part of the OPs so far as the supply of voters list for Municipal Corporation Ward No.25 on the payment of Rs.767/- was concerned.  In this manner, the purpose for which the amount of Rs.767/- was paid by the complainant, the OPs performed full service in that respect.  There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs so far as sale of voters list was concerned. 

7.                     The grievance of the complainant is that in fact the voters list maintained by the OPs was not correctly prepared and there were duplication of names of the voters therein.  In this respect the ld. Counsel for respondent/OP No.2 referred to Section 10 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh) in view of which the superintendence, direction and control of preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to the Corporation shall be vested in the Election Commission appointed under Section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the Election Commission so appointed under that section shall be responsible for preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections to the Corporation.  In view of Section 14 of the Act ibid, every person, whose name is for the time being entered in the electoral rolls for a ward, shall be entitled to vote at an election of a councilor from that ward. The ld. Counsel also referred to the provisions under the Constitution of India under which the Election Commission is appointed and a duty is cast on it to conduct the elections on the basis of the electoral rolls for any such constituency.  The ld. Counsel for the respondent then referred to Rule 2-A of The Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh (preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in view of which for every ward there shall be an electoral roll, which shall be prepared in accordance with these rules.  Rule 2-D provides as under :-

“2-D  Registration of Electors :- The persons entitled to be registered as electors in the electoral roll of a Parliamentary constituency in Chandigarh, as relates to the area comprised within a ward, shall be entitled to be so registered in the electoral roll of that ward and the provisions in this behalf in the Representation of the People Act 1950 (43 of 1950) shall apply to the registration of electors in the electoral roll of a ward as they apply to the registration of electors in the electoral roll of a constituency.”

The correction of entries in electoral roll are made in accordance with Rule 2-F and inclusion of name under Rule 2-G of the Rules ibid.  Any order passed thereunder can be appealed to the Election Commission under Rule 2-H. The information about the electors in the ward or any part thereof can be obtained from the occupants of dwelling houses in view of Rule 6.  A draft of the electoral roll is then published as required under Rule 8 & 9 and objections are invited under Rule 10 within 30 days from the date of publication.  Rule 17 provides for hearing claims and objections, regarding which  an inquiry can also be made under Rule 18.  The names, which were inadvertently omitted, can be included in the electoral roll as provided under Rule 19 and the names of dead electors and of persons who cease to be or are not ordinarily residents of the ward are to be deleted as per Rule 20.  It is thereafter that a final Electoral roll is published under Rule 21.  So far as the inclusion or deletion of name is concerned, those orders can be appealed against in view of Rule 22. Further, Rule 23 records a special provision for preparation of rolls on redelimitation of wards and Rule 24 provides for correction of entries and inclusion of names in the electoral rolls.  The order under Rule 24 is appealable under Rule 25.  The rules, therefore, provide an exhaustive procedure for preparation of electoral roll.  If there is any duplication in the roll objections could be filed for its correction and if nobody filed any objection and the final electoral roll is published that cannot be considered to be a deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for which the complainant is asking for a whopping compensation of Rs.18.00 lacs.

8.                     Apart from the bald assertions, the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove if there is any duplication of names in the electoral roll.  If some person of the same name is entered at two different places, it cannot be said that it is one and the same person and not two different persons  Otherwise also,  had there been any duplication of names, the same would have been got corrected by filing an application for deletion/correction as provided under the Rules.  Since nobody has come forward to get the correction made, even in spite of the opportunity afforded, we cannot blame the OPs for preparing an incorrect electoral roll.

9.                     Otherwise also, the complainant is not a consumer in respect of the deficiency regarding which he has filed the complaint.  The complainant has not paid any fee for preparing the electoral roll. So far as the preparation of electoral roll is concerned, it is a statutory duty on the OPs, which they have performed.  Neither any fee has been charged from the complainant nor he ever moved an application/objection within the time prescribed, for correction/deletion of the names, he cannot be said to be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and, therefore, would not be entitled to any compensation for the alleged deficiency in service.  Needless to mention that the complainant could ask for compensation for deficiency in service only if he had paid any fee for correction of names and produced the proof in this respect before the competent authority.  However, even in that case no compensation can be allowed because the order passed by the competent authority would be appealable under sections 22 & 25 of the Rules ibid and does not give a cause of action to file a consumer complaint under the Act to claim compensation. 

10.                  Further, in order to succeed in the present complaint, it is necessary for the complainant to prove as to what loss he suffered.  Even if a person is entered in the electoral roll at two different places, he would be able to cast his vote only once in view of the precautions being taken by the Election Department to put a mark on the index finger of the person casting his vote.  The failure of a candidate in the election cannot be attributed to repetition of names in the electoral roll.  In this manner, even if some names are presumed to have been repeated in the electoral roll, the complainant is not proved to have lost the election due to that reason.  He, therefore, cannot claim compensation merely because there was some repetition of names (even if accepted to be correct) which he has failed to prove.

11.                  In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same was rightly dismissed by the ld. District Forum, in limine.  We do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

31^st January, 2012

 [NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER