The circular issued to chief electoral officers-CEOs comes in the wake of the Election Commission being flooded with complaints against various candidates for making false disclosures in their affidavits
The Election Commission (EC), which is flooded with complaints of alleged falsification of election affidavits, has said that people are free to approach the courts directly against candidates for concealing information in nomination papers.
The Commission said while earlier aggrieved persons could approach the returning officer with a compliant against a candidate for concealing information or making a false declaration in the election affidavit, now it is open to people to directly move a petition before the appropriate court on the issue.
The EC circular issued to chief electoral officers of all the states last week comes in the wake of the poll panel being flooded with complaints against various candidates for making false disclosures in their affidavits.
In most of the complaints, the EC has been requested to either direct the returning officer to move court against the candidate or issue directions to concerned magistrates to take cognisance of false affidavits.
In June 2004, the EC had said that if complaints are filed before the returning officer on false affidavit, the official would approach the court for action against the candidate if prima facie the allegation was found to be true.
The rules relating affidavits were amended in August 2012 allowing any person to move court directly under section 125 A of the Representation of the People Act against a candidate for filing a false affidavit or concealing information.
The poll panel said after 2012 amendments, "there is no stipulation that complaints under that section (125A) have to be made by the public servant (returning officer)."
Earlier this month, Congress had approached the Election Commission over the issue of the marital status of Narendra Modi seeking action by the poll body against the BJP leader for "hiding" facts in election affidavits filed by him in the past.
Recently, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had moved the Commission alleging that Congress candidate from Chandni Chowk and Law Minister Kapil Sibal had "wilfully" not disclosed details of companies owned by his wife in his election affidavit.
Since bourses are already collecting annual subscription charges from members, it is the responsibility of the exchanges to conduct such audits at their own cost, the commodity markets regulator said
Commodity markets regulator, Forward Markets Commission (FMC), has asked national exchanges not to charge audit fee from their members and directed them to strengthen in-house audit team.
Commodity exchanges are required to conduct audit inspections of their members (brokers) once in a year as part of the compliance regime. Currently, the exchanges are charging fee from their members to conduct their audit.
In a directive issued to the bourses, the comodity markets regulator said: "It has been brought to the FMC's attention that the quality of such audits is often not up to the mark in the absence of sufficient experience and knowledge of the commodity markets and the functioning of the commodity exchanges on the part of the auditors."
Since audit inspections are an important part of the compliance regime of the exchanges and as they are already collecting annual subscription charges from the members, it is the responsibility of the exchanges to conduct such audits at their own cost, it said.
"Therefore, it is directed that exchanges shall henceforth not charge any fee from the members for conducting their audits," FMC said.
The exchanges are also directed to develop at the earliest adequate in-house capacities to conduct all such audits so that such inspections are done in an effective and timely manner, it said.
There are six national bourses -- Multi-Commodity Exchange (MCX), National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange (NCDEX), Ahmedabad-based NMCE, ICEX, ACE and UCX -- and 11 regional commodity exchanges in the country.
In an eight-year-old case, the National Comsumer Forum, while allowing additional payment as per surveyor report, said, the complainant did not claim total loss and hence the insurer cannot be forced to pay full compensation
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has asked National Insurance Co Ltd to pay Rs1.85 lakh with an additional amount of Rs50,000 to a vehicle owner whose vehicle was damaged in a accident about nine years ago.
“It would be appropriate to allow Rs50,000 in addition to the amount awarded by the State Commission, which will meet expenses to be incurred on repairs and replacement of parts (of the vehicle),” the National Consumer Forum said in its order on 17 April 2014.
The case relates to Sawada (Dist Jalgaon, Maharashtra)-based Ismail Khan Amir Khan, whose insured vehicle (Matador) met with an accident on 26 June 2005. As National Insurance Co did not settle his claims for the damage of Matador, Khan filed a case before the Jalgaon District Consumer Forum.
In its order, the District Forum while allowing the complaint directed the insurer to pay Rs4.5 lakh along with interest and also pay additional Rs2,000 for mental agony to Khan.
Aggrieved by this order, National Insurance filed an appeal before the State Commission stating that the complainant (Khan) has not pleaded that it was a case of total loss. The State Commission, while partly allowing the insurer's appeal, reduced the compensation to Rs1.85 lakh from Rs 4.5 lakh.
Khan then approached the NCDRC seeking restoration of order issued by the District Forum. He said, “The District Forum rightly allowed compensation, but the State Commission committed error in reducing compensation, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.”
During the hearing, the NCDRC reviewed report submitted by the surveyors, who after assessment gave the estimate of Rs50,000 for the vehicle loss. “Perusal of spot survey and surveyors report reveals some discrepancies. Without opening vehicle and these assembly items, surveyor rightly did not assess loss, but it can be presumed that some loss must have been caused to these items. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow Rs50,000 in addition to amount awarded by the State Commission, which will meet expenses to be incurred on repairs and replacement of parts, which have not been dismantled and surveyor have kept them open for assessment,” the Forum said.
While sustaining the order issued by the State Commission, the NCDRC said, “As far as total loss of the vehicle is concerned, complainant has not pleaded in the complaint that it was the case of total loss and in such circumstances, total loss of the vehicle can not be inferred. The District Forum committed an error in allowing Rs4.5 lakh on the basis of total loss.”
The National Consumer Forum, however, asked National Insurance to pay additional Rs50,000 for the vehicle loss as per surveyor report to Khan.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - NEW DELHI
Revision Petition no. 1239 of 2012
Petitioner : Ismail Khan Amir Khan
Respondents : National Insurance Co Ltd
Saibaba Market, IInd Floor, At post Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon (Maharashtra)