Suggestions on the draft national water policy – 2012

To

The Ministry of Water Resources

New Delhi

Sir/Madam,

 

We are a 700-member strong organization working to solve consumer, environmental and civic problems of Mysore City (Karnataka) and its surroundings.

The following are our suggestions on the Draft National Water Policy – 2012.

1. Sec. 3.3 of the Draft National Water Policy prioritizes different uses of water. Non-essential activities which consume a lot of water should be prohibited in areas of water scarcity.

2. Sec. 6.6 of the Draft National Water Policy says that water saving in irrigation is of paramount importance. It discusses ways to save water in irrigation. In our view, one of the biggest sources of water wastage in irrigation is the promotion of water-intensive food and cash crops. This has to change. The National Water Policy should work in tandem with a National Agricultural Policy and a National Food Policy which encourage non water intensive food crops (such as millets) in water-scarce regions and promote the use of millets as food.

Check dams and man-made tanks should be promoted over large dams for irrigation purposes as they are much more eco-friendly.

3. Sec. 12 of the Draft National Water Policy speaks about drinking water supply. If expensive processes such as desalination or reverse osmosis are required to provide drinking water in water-scarce areas and areas with endemic ground water quality problems, drinking water should be delinked from piped water. Filtered water can be supplied through pipes for all uses except drinking and potable water (say 5 litres/per head/per day) can be supplied for drinking purposes either in bottles or through vending machines (or through some means). More than 99% of the piped water is used for non-drinking purposes such as washing, bathing, flushing toilets and gardening and there is no point in purifying this water at enormous expense to drinking water standards.

Research should be done in alternate technologies such as river bank filtration and atmospheric water generators which can produce potable water at very low cost and viable technologies should be implemented promptly.

Yours sincerely,

V.Mahesha

Working President

Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Error by National Commission becomes problem for consumers

Citing a decision of the National Consumer Commission, many consumer fora are ruling that complaints concerning allotment of sites by bodies such as Mysore Urban Development Authority do not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. This is causing problems for the consumers. 

In the case decided by the National Commission, a person J.C. Verma of Ropar had applied to Haryana Urban Development Authority for a site. When he did not succeed in getting a site, he asked for a refund of his deposit. But HUDA sent the refund cheque to a person who had the same name but who lived in Mohali. Since his letters to HUDA saying that he had not received the refund produced no results, J.C. Verma of Ropar filed a complaint before the Panchkula district consumer forum. Both the district forum and the Haryana State consumer commission agreed with his arguments and ordered HUDA to return his deposit with interest. HUDA then appealed to the National Commission against these decisions.

The National Commission reversed the decisions of the lower consumer courts. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court ((1994) 4 SCC 225) which said that the right of a consumer in the matter of share allotment arises only after the shares are allotted, it ruled that Verma was not a consumer since he had not been allotted a site. It said that the allotment of sites is similar to allotment of shares and so the the right of a consumer in the matter of site allotment also arises only after the sites are allotted.

It is this judgment of the National Forum which is causing problems to consumers in various consumer courts. But the above interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment by the National Commission is wrong, because there is no analogy between shares and sites. Shares do not exist until they are allotted. They come into real existence only after allotment. This was one of the main reasons behind the Supreme Court judgment. Shares before allotment can only be considered "future goods". The Supreme Court ruling says that a prospective investor in future goods can not be termed a consumer.

Unlike shares, sites do exist even before they are allotted. So the above argument of the Supreme Court does not apply for the allotment of sites.

What is surprising is that the National Commission held that a person applying for sites is not a consumer based on a Supreme Court decision on shares and a perceived analogy between shares and sites, it ignored a landmark decision of the Supreme Court (Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)) which explicitly states that site allotment by bodies such as Urban Development Authorities comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that when UDAs develop land or allot a site or construct a house for the benefit of the common man, it is rendering service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented (which would constitute unfair trade practice), consumer courts can take up the matter. The Supreme Court also said that a person who applies for allotment of a building/site/flat constructed by the UDA is a "potential user" and the transaction is covered in the expression 'service of any description' of the Consumer Protection Act. 

So it is very clear that the moment a person applies for the allotment of a site from an Urban Development Authority, he becomes a consumer of its service and any irregularity in the process of allotment or any problem connected with the site or the payment comes under the purview of consumer courts.

The National Commission makes a reference to this decision of the Supreme Court, but unfortunately does not notice these observations of the Supreme Court. As a result, it has issued an order which contradicts the order of the Supreme Court and creates confusion among the lower consumer courts.

So anyone who is filing a case against MUDA on any allotment issue should bring the order of the Supreme Court in the Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta case to the attention of the District Consumer Forum. Any argument by the opposite party that a person is not a consumer before allotment is refuted by this order.

Dr. T.N. Manjunath, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

MGP conducts lecture-demo on food adulteration

Mysore Grahakara Parishat recently conducted a lecture-demonstration on food adulteration detection at the following places: Depaul International School and College, Belagola, Tharalabalu Samagama, Tilak Nagar, NSS camp of JSS University and Pharmacy College, Jeemaranahalli, Gen. Kariappa College, Madikeri, Government Junior College, Madikeri, Government Higher Primary School, Sampaje, Government Higher Primary School, Virajpet, Government Higher Primary School, Gonikoppa and Vidya Vikas High School and College, Periapatna. 

Under the direction of C.V. Nagaraj (formerly Senior Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Bangalore), students themselves conducted simple tests to detect adulteration in various food items. C.V. Nagaraj also spoke about the harmful effects of various types of adulteration and on the laws that exist in India against food adulteration. Associations interested in arranging such lecture-demos can contact C.V.Nagaraj (Ph: 2521640).

District consumer forum is not consumer friendly

MGP has been receiving several complaints about the delays in getting decisions from the Mysore District Consumer Forum (DCF). To check these complaints, MGP filed an RTI application with the registrar of the Mysore DCF asking for details about the cases decided by the Forum in the eighteen month period between 1-1-10 and 30-6-11. Based on the information provided, we notice several violations of the laws, rules and regulations which has caused avoidable harassment to the consumers.

Sec. 3A of the Consumer Protection Act mandates that every effort must be made by the DCF to decide a complaint within three months. But it appears that the Mysore DCF is not following this direction. Of the 1202 cases decided, only 650 (54%) were decided within 3 months. 482 cases (40%) of the cases took between 3 months and 6 months to decide while 70 cases (6%) took more than 6 months to decide. These delays are causing needless inconvenience and expenditure to the public causing them to lose faith in the consumer courts.

Sec. 3A of the Consumer Protection Act also mandates that adjournments are not ordinarily given. It again appears that the Mysore DCF is violating this direction. Of the 1202 cases decided, NONE were decided without adjournments (which is definitely against the intention of the law). 116 cases (10%) took 1-3 adjournments, 526 cases (44%) took 3-10 adjournments and 560 cases (46%) took more than 10 adjournments. So 90% of the cases before the Mysore DCF take more than 3 hearings and nearly half the cases take more than 10 hearings to be decided. One case against MUDA has taken 30 hearings. Such delays defeat the whole reason for enacting the CP Act, namely, speedy justice.

Sec. 11 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 makes it clear that if a party asks for adjournments, the DCF  should levy a fine of not less than 500 Rs., except in very rare cases in which it can be reduced to 100 Rs. But in no case, can the cost of an adjournment be less than 100 Rs. It again appears that the Mysore DCF is violating these directions. Of the 1202 cases (i.e., all the cases that were before the DCF) which had at least one adjournment, costs were levied only in 318 cases (29%). Even in these cases, the directions given by the Consumer Protection Regulations were not followed. The cost was Rs. 500 or more only in 40 cases (13%). In 250 cases (79%), it was Rs. 50 which is clearly forbidden by the Regulations. What is surprising is that the party asking adjournments in all the 250 cases in which Rs. 50 was levied as the cost of adjournment was the same defendant, namely, Chanakya Finance Corporation.

It is the intention of the Consumer Protection Regulations that a portion of the cost imposed for asking an adjournments should go to the DCF (to be deposited in the deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account) and the remaining portion given to the other party to defray his expenses. But in Mysore DCF, this is rarely done.

We have also received complaints that some parties against whom the DCF has passed orders are not obeying these orders, but the DCF is not exercising powers given under Secs. 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act to punish them. Such lenience will encourage more people to violate the orders of the DCF and make real consumer protection a mirage.

Let us give some specific anti-consumer actions by the Mysore DCF given recently  based on certified copies of order sheets obtained from the DCF.
1. Case No. Ex.Cr. 79/2010 (Original Case CC 79/2009)

The DCF took nearly 30 hearings to give a decision. Adjournments were given to the defendant  regularly, but after the 3rd hearing, the DCF stopped giving costs to the complainant. So the complainant had to appear for more than 25 hearings at his own cost. The defendant disobeyed the DCF's order and also did not attend the hearings of the execution (criminal) proceedings in spite of being served 3 non-bailable warrants. Instead of holding the defendant personally responsible and imposing a jail sentence for this gross contempt, the DCF imposed a fine of just Rs. 2500. The defendant has again ignored this order. The fine is yet to be paid.

2. Case No. CC 1070/2010

After holding nearly 30 hearings, the DCF declared that the complainant (who was an old illiterate widow who had complained that she had not obtained an Ashraya house 8 years after her late husband had paid the deposit) was not a consumer since she was getting the house at a concessional rate. It is not clear why it took the DCF 20 hearings to even decide if the complainant was a consumer. Further the reason given by it to declare her a non-consumer is wrong since, the Consumer Protection Act bars only free goods and services from the purview of the Act and not goods and services given at a concessional rate. An appeal against this decision of the DCF is pending before the State Commission for the last 5 months.     

3. Case No. Ex.Cr. 131/2010 (Original Case CC 601/2010)

The opposite party did not appear in spite of several non-bailable warrants. The DCF concluded the hearings several times by recording the last hearing as "final", yet no decision was given at the next hearing.  After nearly 20 hearings, the case was closed on 18-1-2012 by compromise between the parties.

4. Case No. Ex.Cr. 126/2010 (Original Case CC 231/2010)

The DCF ordered the opposite party to pay Rs. 47,000 and he paid Rs. 7,500 after 12 hearings. The case dragged on and the he paid another installment of Rs. 10,000 after 20 hearings. A warrant was issued for his arrest, but the opposite party escaped arrest by posting bail. The money due from the opposite party is increasing. The DCF does not give costs for execution proceedings and so the cost of attending the hearings is also increasing for the complainant. The case is still going on and there are no signs that the opposite party will ever fully obey the order of the DCF. The case is now posted for 21-2-2012.

Sreemathi Hariprasad, President, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

Railways take action

MGP had recently issued a press statement that Mysore City Corporation is levelling the land in Yadavagiri next to the Arasikere Railway line to construct some buildings supposedly under the JNNURM project. But contrary to law, the work was going on without getting an NOC from the Railways. This was brought to the notice of the Railways and they have issued a clarification on 3-2-12. In the clarification, they say that at this location, the railway boundary on the western side varies from 30 feet to 63 feet from the centre of the railway track. Any construction within 30 meters (98 feet) of the railway property needs a "No Objection" certificate from the railways. So nothing can be built within 128 feet (this could be as high as 161 feet) from the centre of the railway track without an NOC from the railways.

The railways have also said that they have alrady taken action against the illegal construction that was going on. Levelling of the ground and uprooting of the trees have been stopped. Painted stones has been placed to clearly demarcate the railway boundary. Frequent inspection is being carried out to prevent encroachment. 

We thank the railways for taking prompt action on the matter.

B.V. Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

Photos from the January 2012 edition of Grahaka Patrike

(Vishwas Krishna) 

The dais at the National Consumer Day (24-12-11) celebrated by MGP and the Institute of Engineers, Mysore Local Chapter. MGP members Sreemathi Hariprasad (1st from left), H.R. Bapu Satyanarayana (4th from left), Prof. R. Chandra Prakash (5th from left) and Dr. T.N. Manjunath (6th from left). 

(B.V.Shenoy) 

More than 100 persons participated in the World Consumer Day celebrations on 

Vasanthkumar Mysoremath of MGP was the main speaker at the environment awareness programme held recently at Madapura. 

A prestigious builder promised a swimming pool at an apartment building in J.P.Nagar. What was actually built was a kids playpool. The tenants are now suing the builder for misleading advertisement.

MCC violating government order once again

MGP had recently issued a press statement highlighting the violation of a Government Order by Mysore City Corporation.This referred to the Karnataka State Government notification No. NaAI:628:MNY:2003 dated 19-12-2003 which mandates that all high-rise buildings (HRBs meaning, buildings having five (1+4) floors or more or taller than 15 meters) in Mysore should strictly follow the National Building Code on the provision of fire prevention and fire-fighting equipment. The GO further states that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the fire department is mandatory before licence to build a multi-storeyed building is issued. Also, a clearance certificate from the fire department is compulsory for issuing a completion report. Despite this GO and numerous reminders from the fire department, MCC has continued to allow high-rise buildings without the required NOC from the fire department.

Now another violation of a government notification has come to our notice. According to Sec. 827 of the Indian Railways Works Manual, any building constructed within 30 meters (about 100 feet) from a railway line by either private parties or municipal authorities must obtain a No Objection Certificate from the railways before construction. The purpose of this restriction is obvious. It is to conserve adjacent lands to meet future development needs of the railways (such as double tracking, electrification, etc.). Construction in this corridor makes acquisition of the land very difficult if structures exist in the corridor. Understanding this necessity of the Railways, the Government of Karnataka has issued an order No. HUD 128 GEL 84 (dated 20-10-1984) to all the local bodies in Karnataka that NOC from the Railways is mandatory for any construction in the 60 m wide corridor through which a railway line passes.

But MCC is levelling the land in Yadavagiri next to the Arasikere Railway line to construct some buildings supposedly under the JNNURM project. This land is within 30 m of the railway line and despite the nearby residents raising legal objections, work seems to be going on without getting an NOC from the Railways. Why is MCC so bent on violating the Government notification? Why are the Railways keeping quiet?

B.V. Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

Lawyers' strike: is it legal?

Lawyers are striking work  and boycotting courts frequently these days, mostly alleging injustice to one of their colleagues. At first, the boycotts were limited to the cities in which the injustice allegedly occurred, but now, lawyers all over the state are boycotting the courts about an incident that took place in Bengaluru. The day may not be far off when there will be nationwide strikes when a lawyer in manhandles by someone.

Lawyers' strikes are not only paralyzing our judicial system, but also, many a time paralyzing every day life by blocking roads and other essential services. Many people are interested in knowing what the laws and the courts say about such strikes.

All lawyers in India are bound by the Advocates Act, 1961. Under Sec. 49(1)(c) of the this Act,  the Bar Council of India has framed rules governing the conduct of advocates. Various High Courts and the Supreme Court have repeatedly interpreted these rules to completely ban strikes by advocates. In one judgment ((2003) 2 SCC 45), the Supreme Court said that the lawyers can ventilate their grievances by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying banners or placards, wearing black bands, holding peaceful protest marches, dharnas or relay fasts, etc. (all these outside the court premises), but not by striking work and abstaining from courts. In another judgment ((1999) 1 SCC 37), the Supreme Court held that if any lawyer does not want to appear in a particular court, he should return the briefs of his clients so that they can engage another lawyer. But retaining the brief of his client and at the same time abstaining from appearing in a court is unprofessional as unbecoming of the status of an advocate.

Lawyers have often argued that they have a right to strike as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution (Freedom of Speech). But the courts have held that a litigant has a fundamental right for a speedy trial of his case as guaranteed by Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. A strike by lawyers will infringe this fundamental right of the litigants and such infringement cannot be permitted. The exercise of the right under Article 19 comes to an end when such exercise threatens the fundamental right of another, the courts have said. 

Since the litigant has a fundamental right to a speedy trial, it automatically follows that the courts are bound to conduct hearings and pass orders even when lawyers for both sides are absent because of a strike. In a judgment ((1998) 8 SCC 624), the Supreme Court has held that courts should conduct hearings in such a situation as otherwise it would amount to the courts participating in the strike. It is not known how many courts follow this order of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has also ruled against enforcing Bandhs or Rasta Rokos during a strike. In a judgment (AIR 1998 SC 184), it has said that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claim of fundamental right of a section of the people. Therefore, there cannot be any right to call a Bandh which interferes with the fundamental freedoms of other citizens.

If a lawyer who works for a fee does not appear at the hearing because of a strike or a boycott, he or she can be prosecuted in a consumer forum for deficiency of service, according to a judgment of the National Consumer Grievances Redressal Commission (II (2002) CPJ 118 (NC)). In this judgment, the National Commission has also ordered that the Consumer Fora should not give adjournments for lawyer strikes. 

In its order, the National Commission observed, "Strike is a virus which should not be allowed to infect the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. It should never be ground for adjournment in a Forum that the lawyers are on strike....We have to guard ourselves against the pernicious practice of strike by lawyers spreading to the Fora under the Act. Nonappearance of a lawyer in a court or tribunal or any Authority after being engaged and having charged his fee could itself be deficiency on his part. There is already a public criticism that Fora under the Act are fast becoming Civil Courts where adjournments are granted as matter of course. This should not be permitted, otherwise the purpose of the Act will be lost. State Commissions should ensure that no adjournment is granted on the ground of strike by lawyers. If the lawyers do not appear before the District Forum or State Commission, it can decide the matter on the basis of the record, if it so chooses. A request for adjournment on the ground of strike by lawyers is not justifiable ground for adjourning the matter."

V.Mahesha, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

ATM machines - what you should know

Since their inception five decades ago, ATMs (Automated Teller Machines) have rapidly proliferated worldwide. In India also, they are spreading at breakneck speed. The public seem to prefer ATM transactions to credit cards since they are less risky and do not involve the payment of interest. 

Customer complaints about ATMs are also increasing rapidly. They include non-disbursal of cash and excessive debit from the customer's account. When a customer encounters such a problem, very often he does not know how to get it redressed. 

The following are the Reserve Bank of India guidelines regarding ATMs (available at their website).

1. Customer Charges: 
a. For use of own ATMs for any purpose - Free 
b. For use of other bank ATMs for any purpose - Five transactions per month free.
After 5 free transactions, typical fees are Rs. 20 per financial transaction and Rs. 10 per non-financial transaction (such as checking account balance).   
c. For cash withdrawals using credit cards - Fee can be charged.  (Typically, the fee is equivalent to 25-35% annual interest.)

2. Security Measures:

The machine should not respond unless Personal Identification Number is entered separately for each transaction. So even if a customer forgets his card at the ATM, the next person will not be able to misuse it.

3.Resolution of customer complaints:

a. Banks have to resolve customer complaints within 7 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint.

b. If the complaint is lodged within 30 days of the date of transaction and the bank does not resolve it within 7 days from the date of lodging the complaint, it has to pay the customer Rs. 100 for each day of delay. 

The RBI also requires all ATMs to be user-friendly for persons with disabilities. The ATMs should be provided with ramps and their height should be such that they are accessible to wheelchair users. At least one third of new ATMs installed should be talking ATMs with Braille keypads which can be used by visually impaired persons. 

Any customer who faces any problem at an ATM should immediately complain to the bank which issued the ATM card to him/her and the bank which operates the ATM. If the problem is not resolved, he/she can approach the consumer courts against the deficieny in service.

Pooja Kini, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

State Information Commission hearings

Complaints about violations of the Right to Information Act from Mysore district were heard by the Karnataka Information Commission on 19-12-11. The hearings were conducted via teleconferencing, with the two opposing parties sitting at the DC's Office, Mysore and the State Chief Information Commissioner at his office in Bangalore. These are my experiences at the hearings.

Notices had been issued to the complainants and defendants to be present at the teleconferencing room at the DC's office at 10 AM. But at 10 AM, only two complainants and two defendants were present. The video operator came at 10.05 and started setting up the call to Bangalore. At 10.15 the Mysore City Commissioner came and the DC came at 10.30. The telelink to Bangalore was established at 10.30 but the SCIC had not come. At 10.45, most of the complainants and the defendants had assembled and the room was full. At 10.55 a message was received from Bangalore that the hearings would start at 11.15. The SCIC came on the screen at 11.22, said that he was held up by traffic and apologized for the delay in the start of the proceedings. The hearings finally started at 11.24. 

Most of the complainants were rural people who had not received the information they had sought from village or taluk level information officers. It appeared that most of these officers who were attending the hearings were not at all well-prepared. Many had come without the concerned files and "I am new to this job" and "The file is missing" were common answers to the SCIC's questions. The SCIC was so exasperated at one point that he remarked "No one is telling the truth!" 

The lack of preparation by the information officers may be related to the fact that the Information Commissions are reluctant to punish the errant officers. In the present hearings, there were only a couple of cases in which the information had been supplied within one month (the period specified by the RTI Act), but in the 30 odd other cases in which the information had not been supplied within the prescribed time limit, the SCIC imposed a punishment only once. 

According to the RTI Act, if the information officer does not provide the information in 30 days, the applicant should first appeal to the appellate authority (who is usually the head of the government institution where the information is sought) and if the information is still not forthcoming, he should appeal to the Information Commission. So if a complaint is filed before the Information Commission, it means that both the information officer and the appellate authority have not done their job. But the RTI act prescribes punishment only to the information officers and none to the appellate authorities. This is not right. 

But there seems to be a way around this shortcoming of the law. According to Sec. 19(8)(b) of the Act, the Commission can require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. Combining this provision of the law with the order of the Supreme Court (III(1993) CPJ 7 (SC)) which says that when a government department is fined for deficiency in service, the official responsible for the deficiency must be personally held liable for the fine, the Information Commissions can punish the appellate authority also for dereliction of duty. 

One problem with the teleconference hearings was that the SCIC could not hear clearly what the parties were saying. This was because the microphone was at the head of the table and the seats just behind the microphone were occupied by the DC and MCC Commissioner and the parties had to take seats to one side. When the parties were looking at the screen to see the SCIC, their voices were not being picked up by the microphone. This problem can be easily solved by seating the parties themselves at the head of the table. 

The inability of the SCIC to hear the parties clearly led to at least one unfair decision, in which the SCIC ordered that the complainant should pay the required page fees to obtain the information. This information had not been supplied to the complainant within 30 days of his application and so according to Sec. 7(6) of the RTI Act, the page charges have to be waived. The complainant was arguing this point, but obviously the SCIC did not hear him and passed the order for the payment of page charges.

Surya Prakash, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

MGP conducts lecture-demo on food adulteration

Mysore Grahakara Parishat recently conducted a lecture-demonstration on food adulteration detection at the following places: 

Government Higher Primary School, Bhagamandala, Government Higher Primary School, Murnadu, Government High School, Napoklu, Morarji Residential School, Basavanahalli, Government High School, Kodagarahalli, Rotary High School, Kushalanagar, Government Higher Primary School, Hakattur, K.Puttaswamy P.U. College, Vijayanagar, Government High School, Hinkal, Government High School Nizamia, Lashkar Mohalla, Chinmaya Vidyalaya P.U. College, Jayalakshmipuram and Gopalaswamy P.U. College, Nanju Malige. 

Under the direction of C.V. Nagaraj (formerly Senior Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Bangalore), students themselves conducted simple tests to detect adulteration in various food items. C.V. Nagaraj also spoke about the harmful effects of various types of adulteration and on the laws that exist in India against food adulteration. Prof. S.K. Ananda Thirtha and D.V. Dayanand Sagar assisted.

Associations interested in arranging such lecture-demos can contact C.V.Nagaraj (Ph: 2521640).

Photos from December 2011 edition of Grahaka Patrike

Uncleared building debris. 

Sewage leaking from overhead pipes in the parking lot. 

Walls of the parking lot stained by leaking sewage. 

Densely packed two-wheelers in the parking lot.

What you should know about electricity security deposits

According to Sec. 5.1 of the Security Deposit Regulations, 2007  issued by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, domestic electricity consumers in Mysore are required to pay a Security Deposit to Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company. This security deposit is two times (the cost of 45 units plus the fixed charge).

According to Interest on Security Deposit Regulations, 2005 issued by KERC, CESC should pay interest on this deposit at the bank rate as on April 1. This annual interest should be credited to the consumer before the end of June. The details of the deposit and the interest paid should be given to the consumers along with the bill in the month in which the interest is adjusted. An excess amount being held as deposit must be refunded to the consumer.

Let us look at a typical domestic consumer with a sanctioned load of 2.5 kW. After the recent revision of electricity tariffs, the monthly fixed charge is Rs. 25 for the first kW of the sanctioned load plus Rs. 35 for each additional kW of sanctioned load. So the fixed charge for a sanctioned load of 2.5 kW is Rs. 77.50. Now, the the cost of electricity is Rs. 2.20/unit (upto 30 units) and Rs. 3.40/unit (for 31-100 units). and so the cost of 45 units is 30x2.20 + 15x3.40 = 117. So the Security Deposit is 2x(117+77.50)=389 Rs. Since the bank rate was 6% on April 1, 2011, CESC should have credited 389x0.06 =  23 Rs. into the consumer's account in his June electricity bill. Note that the deposit amount and the interest on it could be lower in the June, 2011 bill, since the fixed charges and electricity rates were lower then.

In all the electricity bills we have checked, CESC has credited the interest on the Security Deposit in the June electricity bill. But it has not given the amount held by it as deposit, which is violative of the Interest on Security Deposit Regulations, 2005.

Consumers are advised to check their June electricity bills to make sure that the interest on the deposit is being credited to their account. They should also make sure that CESC is not holding an excess amount as deposit and are paying the correct rate of interest. CESC and its predecessors, MESCOM and KEB have collected various amounts at various times as deposits,additional deposits, etc. and CESC may not have a full record of exactly how much amount they are holding as deposit. So, if the consumers have proof of what they have paid in the past, they should make sure that the entire amount is entered into CESC registers.

Prof. S.Sekhar, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Poorly Designed Suburban Bus Stand

The suburban bus stand of Mysore on Bangalore Nilgiri Road has been upgraded at a cost of Rs. 30 crores under JNNURM. MGP has received complaints from the public about the poor conditions prevailing in this expensive bus stand. These conditions appear to be a consequence of numerous defects in the planning, design, execution and maintenance of the facility. It is a matter of concern that the central bus stand which was also upgraded recently at enormous expense under JNNURM also suffers from defects in the planning, design, execution and maintenance. Here are some of the problems faced by the public in the suburban bus stand.

PARKING 

It appears that the basement parking  can hold about 30 cars and several hundred two-wheelers. Even now, it normally appears full. But, most of the commercial establishments scheduled to come up in the new building have not started operation and when they start working and their customers start coming in, there will be no parking space for their vehicles. This shows a lack of proper planning. 

leaking sewage water at underground parking

Due to poor design and execution, raw sewage from overhead pipes is leaking in several places in the basement parking, soiling both people and their vehicles. This is disgusting. The walls are stained by leaking sewage and there are puddles of sewage water in several places. The public and their vehicles have to wade through this muck. The bus stand was touted to be "world class" and this is certainly not what is expected in a world class facility.

The lighting in the underground parking area is very weak  It appears that there is no backup generator and so when there is a power shutdown, the whole place goes pitch dark. It is hard to imagine how the public can park their vehicles or get them out in such a situation. This is poor execution and poor maintenance.

Since the whole parking lot is damp and dark, there are mosquitoes all the time. Persons manning the parking lot must be going through hell every day.

storm water drains clogged with debris

The storm water drains (at the entrances of the parking lot) which are supposed to prevent rain water from entering the underground parking space are clogged with debris and hence are not doing their job. We have received complaints that during rains, there is flooding in the parking lot.

the missing "Cloak Room"

There are no proper directions to the parking lot from the passenger platform. The sign says "Cloak Room" and leads to the parking lot!

BUS BAYS

"Extended" bus bays

Since buses back into the stand to pick up passengers, about 6 feet at the edge of the passenger platform should have been cordoned off  from the public. But it has not been done. As a result of this poor design, there is the distinct possibility that unwary persons standing or walking in this area can be hit by a bus backing into position.

useless raised passenger platforms espcially when it rains

The raised passenger platform projects  8-10 feet out to enable passengers to board the bus from its back entrance. But all the new buses have entrances only in the front. So the purpose of providing this projection is defeated. This is poor design.

The same is true for the roof overhang. If the roof had covered the entire length of the bus, passengers could enter the bus even in heavy rain without getting wet. Now it is not possible. With very little effort, boarding passengers and baggage could have been protected from sun and rain. This again is poor design.

not even a single drain was visible in the entire area

We did not see any drains to remove rain water in the vast area in which the buses stand. Unless perfect camber has been provided, pools of water will form during rains.

BUS ENTRANCE

buses parked haphazardly

Incoming buses stop near the entry to the bus stand disgorging passengers. This is a scene of chaos. Some buses are parked helter-skelter three abreast, passengers are getting down and scooting between other moving buses. It is a wonder people are not run down regularly.  Once again, this is not a good design.

uneven surface near one of the entrances

Both the road and the footpaths near the bus inlet are in bad condition with uneven surface and debris. This is again poor execution and maintenance.

STAIRS AND HANDICAPPED ACCESS

There are several needless stairs. Instead of keeping them at the same level as the passenger platform, the ticket counters have been placed a couple of feet higher leading to needless stairs. 

stairs to....err.. nowhere!

There are also stairs leading to nowhere!  Obviously these stairs led to some place, but the building plan must have changed and now there is a wall at the head of the stairs. This is poor planning indeed.

useless ramps

Ramps have been provided at some places, but as seen in the above photo, there is no ramp from the footpath to the road! Such ramps pay mere lip service to the Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995 and violate the spirit of the law.

LEGALITY OF SHOPPING CENTRE

The land on which the moffusil bus stand has been built is classified as "Traffic and Transportation" in the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, 2011 for Mysore. According to zoning regulations, only bus stands and parking can be provided in such a zone and  canteens and banking counters (not exceeding 5% of the total area) can be provided with special permission. There is no provision for shops in a Traffic and Transportation zone. Shops have existed for several years next to the Bangalore section of the bus stand and now more shops and restaurants are coming up. Is this not a violation of the zoning regulations?

The detailed project  report for the bus stand, available here (pdf), says "Given the location of the proposed bus terminal and the real estate scenario in the moffusil bus stand, large scale leveraging of the site is possible". It appears that making money has taken precedence over providing quality service to the public. Providing an unnecessary shopping complex has become more important than providing decent parking and safe platforms.

Vishwas Krishna, MGP

Kudos to officials

There is widespread feeling among the public that the government does not respond to their complaints. While this may be true in general, there are many officials certainly who do act upon public complaints. Here are three examples. MGP's complaint about these problems were carried in the local media and the concerned officials have promptly rectified the situation

The bus stand on JLB Road near RTO Circle was dilapidated and ready to collapse any moment. After MGP complained in July, 2011, concerned officials have demolished the bus stand and prevented a potential catastrophe.

The bus stand near Nirmala Convent in V.V. Puram had no seats for a long time.After MGP complained in September, 2011, concerned officials have provided seats for the public.

The road hump on KRS road near CFTRI gate was too high and was causing accidents. After MGP complained in September, 2011, concerned officials have reduced the height of the hump.

We thank these officials.

D.V. Dayanand Sagar, Mysore Grahakara Parishat