Potholes and Barriers

Potholes and trenches dug by workmen are quite common on the streets of Mysore. It is common knowledge that they are causing numerous accidents. It is good that the police are putting barriers near some of them to warn the approaching vehicles of the danger. The photo shows one such barrier near the intersection of JLB Road and Kantharaj Urs Road.

But such barriers should be just temporary. When a barrier is put up, the agency in charge of road repair (MCC, MUDA, PWD) should immediately send workers and fill the pothole or trench. But this never happens. As a result, the barrier remains in place for months obstructing traffic and causing accidents itself. The barrier in the photo has been standing for more than two months.

Vishwas Krishna, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

MGP's Suggestions to TRAI

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a meeting with the consumers today in Mysore. MGP broughtthe following issues to the attention of TRAI:

1. Non-BSNL telecom companies are not issuing telephone directories. All telecom companies should be required to put their subscriber directories on the internet. People can be charged for printed copies to save paper.

2. Public utilities such as railways, municipal corporation, bus service, etc. (who have been given 3- and 4-digit numbers for easier dialling) can not be accessed from non-BSNL telephones. This should be rectified.

3.  BSNL gives discount to customers making use of E-bill and E-payment systems. But some other service providers are not providing such discounts.

4. Some telecom providers are not barring commercial calls on mobile despite request for the same.

5. Supreme Court orders regarding removal of Communication Towers in thickly populated areas, and residential areas are being ignored routinely.

6. There is no clarity about roaming charges.

7. Automatic complaint redressal systems employed by most telecom companies are not consumer-friendly. They must be replaced by a system manned by people to avoid long wait, wrong dialing and exasperation to the consumers.

R.Chandra Prakash, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

MGP objections to electricity tariff hike proposal

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC), which supplies electric power to Mysore has filed an application before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) to increase electricity tariffs for 2014. KERC is holding hearings on the application at the Mysore DC's Office at 11 AM on 26-2-13. Mysore Grahakara Parishat is filing the following objections to the tariff proposal:

1. Sec. 61(g) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA) intends that the tariff should reflect the actual cost of power. Since all the power supply companies in Karnataka have filed for identical tariff increases, it is obvious that the tariff proposed by them in general, and CESC in particular, does not reflect the actual cost of power. For example, the proposed tariffs (energy charges) for LT 2(a)(i) category (domestic AEH) is as follows:

                                           Present rate    Proposed rate        % increase
For the first 30 units              2.30                      3.00                       30
31 to 100 units                      3.50                      4.20                       20
101 to 200 units                    4.60                      5.30                       15
More than 200 units              5.60                      6.30                       13

These figures are identical for all the ESCOMs. The five electricity supply companies have made it a habit to collude with each other and propose identical tariff increases. The actual cost of supply of power for all these companies can not be the same to the last decimal place when one takes into account, the different locations, different distances to power sources, different demographics and different costs of living. It is clear that the ESCOMs have not determined the cost of power supply in any scientific manner, but are presenting fictitious numbers. For this reason, the tariff hike proposed by CESC should be rejected. The ESCOMs have been always submitting identical tariffs and we have vehemently opposed this in the past, but to no avail. The Commission is again requested to direct them to cease this practice and determine the actual cost of power supplied.

2. Sec. 5.9.4 of the National Electricity Policy states that a more regulatory approach of setting standards for energy conservation would be followed. The most obvious regulation to promote energy conservation is to have higher tariffs for higher consumption. Increasing the tariff by the same amount irrespective of consumption goes in the opposite direction. In the table above, the tariff has been increased by 0.70 Rs. for all consumers. This works out to 30% increase for consumers who practice energy conservation and just 13% increase for consumers who waste energy. Such a rate increase defeats the aim of the National Electricity Policy. Since Sec. 61(i) of the EA mandates that the National Electricity Policy must be followed in fixing tariffs, the rate increase also violates the law. Rightly, it should have been the other way round, with a small percentage increase for the lowest slab and a large percentage  increase for the highest slab.

3. Sections 61(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the EA stipulate that the Commission shall be guided by  principles of 'economical use of the resources', 'optimum investments', 'interests of the consumers' and 'commercial principles'. It is clear that none of these requirements have been fully met by CESC. The process of tariff revision should not only suitably compensate CESC for any unavoidable increase in the input costs, but it should also seek to eliminate wastage and increase efficiency to adequate levels. From the data submitted by CERC, it is clear that the efficiency is going down and the distribution losses have actually increased compared to past years.The efficiency improvement projected by CESC for the next few years is negligible.There might be no need for a tariff hike now if CESC had undertaken a committed drive to improve its operational efficiencies; to bring down the AT&C loss to international levels, to ensure accurate metering of all the connected installations, to improve revenue collection efficiency to 100%, to adopt international benchmarking and to adopt best work practices. Increased deficit between its anticipated cost and revenue of CESC is not an inalienable right to get tariff increases, without exhausting all available means to improve operational and commercial efficiency. Unless these efficiency issues are satisfactorily resolved and the necessary commitments given, CESC's application should not be approved.

V.Mahesha, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

Terms in contract cannot oust consumer court jurisdiction

When one buys goods (or even apartments), the terms of sale frequently impose the condition that any dispute between the seller and the buyer will be adjudicated only in the courts of Delhi or Mumbai or some other city where the selling company might have its head office.

If there is a defect with the goods and the seller does not rectify it, the Consumer Protection Act provides for easy and in expensive relief. According to Sec. 11 of the Act, a case can be filed before a District Consumer Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction, the seller resides or carries on business or has a branch office or where the cause of action arises.ÿIt is naturally very convenient for the consumer to file a case in a consumer forum rather than a court in Delhi or Mumbai. But many consumer fora have dismissed such complaints as not maintainable since the consumers are bound by the terms of the contract which compels the case to be heard in Delhi or Mumbai.

But in a recent decision (I(2013) CPJ 31 (NC)), the National Consumer Commission has come to the rescue of the consumers. It says that the jurisdiction of the consumer fora are not ousted by terms in the contract. It agreed that by mentioning any specific condition in the agreement, one party cannot take the benefit of territorial jurisdiction of the courts of their choice.

Therefore, if consumers see such restrictive conditions in the terms of sale, they can disregard them and file cases in the consumer fora which have territorial jurisdiction.

B.V.Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

RBI plans to do away with Cheques

The Reserve Bank of India has published a draft policy and has called for feedback from the public before 28-2-2013. The policy aims to strongly discourage the use of cheques in favour of electronic cash transfer. It also aims to encourage the use of debit cards in ATM machines for cash withdrawals. In other words, the new policy aims at replacing "paper" banking by e-banking. Mysore Grahakara Parishat has submitted the following feedback.

Experts in cyber-security believe that e-banking in India carries high risk and is unsafe. It is estimated that more than Rs. 8000 crores are lost every year due to e-banking frauds. It is surprising that RBI is promoting these high risk transactions. Several committees have given their reports on how to make e-banking safe, but their recommendations have not been implemented. It would have been better if the RBI had taken steps to make e-banking safe and then published the present policy paper. Another issue is that the laws concerning cheques (such as the Negotiable Instruments Act) are time-tested while laws on e-banking are still nascent.

Experts point out that UK also considered a similar policy and proposed phasing out of cheques by 2018. But strong opposition from the public forced the government to drop the idea. Experts also say that if cheques are discouraged, persons who are using cheques may switch to cash transactions rather than e-transactions and this might aggravate the problem of fake currency.

In a policy paper, one would expect a discussion of both the positive and the negative effects of the proposed policy. This would enable the policy-making body to come to a rational and balanced conclusion. But the RBI policy paper lists only the benefits of replacing paper banking by e-banking. It is no wonder that the proposed policy is skewed in that direction.

Asha Vombatkere, Secretary, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

MGP opposes KERC amendment

Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission issued a notification in 2004 to all the electricity supply companies in Karnataka (ESCOMs) to set up a Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) for the speedy resolution of consumer problems related to electricity supply. CGRF is quite similar to the consumer fora set up under the Consumer Protection Act, but CGRF is limited to deficiency in service by the parent ESCOM only. It has three members, two from the ESCOM and the third from a recognized consumer organization. Billing problems, defective meters, delays in providing service, voltage fluctuations, etc, all come within the purview of  the CGRF. 

KERC has recently published (17-1-13 issue of Karnataka Gazette) a draft amendment to its earlier notification and invited comments from the public. A major amendment is changing the qualification of the third member of the CGRF from "a member of a recognized consumer organization" to "a person with experience or knowledge of electricity sector/consumer affairs".

Mysore Grahakara Parishat has opposed this change. It believes that a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum must  have a consumer organization representative to argue the case of the consumer. As it is, two of the three members of the CGRF are members of the electricity supply company and with the proposed amendment, there is a fear that all the members of the CGRF will be aligned with the company and there will be no one to argue the case of the consumer. This would defeat the very purpose of setting up the CGRF.

Maj.Gen.(Rtd.) S.G. Vombatkere, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

One more clarification needed

Ever since the direct cash transfer scheme for LPG subsidy was announced, we have been seeing people in authority make contradictory statements leading to more and more confusion.

This is the latest entry in the list of contradictory statements. It deals with when the LPG subsidy amount actually gets deposited in the consumer account. Advertisements which are appearing on the radio say that the subsidy gets deposited in the account as soon the new cylinder is booked. A few days ago, they interviewed an IOC official Mr. Mahesh on the Mysore FM radio station and it was again stated in the programme that the subsidy amount would be deposited in the consumer account as soon as the booking is done and that the consumer can use this amount to pay for the cylinder.

But a visit to the IOC website gets you a different answer. The website says that the amount will be credited a few days after the cylinder is delivered.

Will someone answer definitively when the subsidy amount will be credited to the bank account?

P.M. Bhat, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

MGP files case against MCC on Property Tax

Mysore Grahakara Parishat has filed a case for permanent injunction restraining the Mysore City Corporation from the levying taxes not permitted under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The case (O.S. No. 1177/2012) is being heard by the 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division). The following is the gist of MGP's argument. 

Many of the taxes being levied by MCC are illegal and the procedure adopted by MCC to calculate the tax is also illegal.

MCC is a statutory body created by the KMC Act and it derives all its powers from the Act. Sec. 103 of the Act defines all the taxes that can be levied by MCC and MCC can not levy any tax other than those enumerated therein, namely,
a) a tax on buildings or vacant land or both , i.e., the property tax (Sec. 103(b)(i) of the Act),
b) a tax on advertisement (Sec. 103(b)(vi) of the Act), 
c) additional stamp duty on certain transfers of property (Sec. 103(b)(vii) of the Act),
d) infrastructure cess (Sec. 103B(1) of the Act) and
e). solid waste management cess (Sec. 103B(2) of the Act).

These taxes are the only lawful taxes that can be levied by MCC. But MCC is also levying the following taxes: 1) health cess, 2) anti-beggary cess, 3) library cess, 4) vacant site cleaning cess, and 5) UGD cess. MGP filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 asking MCC the provisions of the KMC Act under which the taxes 1-4 are levied. In its reply MCC did not quote any sections of the Act. Instead it said that they are levied on the basis of various government orders. So it is clear that these taxes do not have the sanction of the Act. Since no section of the Act gives MCC powers to levy these taxes and since government orders can not give MCC powers not expressly provided by the Act, the levy of these taxes is illegal and liable to be quashed. Similarly, the UGD cess is also not sanctioned by any section of the Act and hence is illegal and liable to be quashed.

In calculating property tax, MCC permits an annual depreciation of the value of buildings, again based on a government order. Since no section of the Act gives MCC powers to allow depreciation and since government orders can not give MCC powers not expressly given by the Act, allowing depreciation in the calculation of property tax is illegal and is liable to be quashed.

In calculating property tax, MCC permits a 50% rebate for self-occupation. In its reply to the RTI application, MCC says that Sec. 109A of the Act is the basis for allowing the depreciation. But Sec. 109A which permitted 50% rebate was repealed in 2005 and replaced by a new Sec. 109A. The new Sec. 109A (see below) says nothing about the rebate. So the 50% rebate is not sanctioned by any section of the Act and hence is illegal and liable to be quashed.

MCC is forcing the citizens to calculate the property tax afresh every year. This is illegal and contrary to Sec. 109A of the Act which clearly says that the property tax shall not be assessed each year but shall stand enhanced by 15 percent once in every three years commencing from the financial year 2005-2006. So once the property tax is calculated, it need not be calculated afresh every year after that. Since property tax is "Self assessed" by the tax payers, it is the intention of the Act to make the calculation as simple as possible. It was also the intention of the Act to protect the property owners from steeply escalating taxes due to escalation of property values. It is for these reasons that the Act has prohibited fresh calculation of property tax every year. Forcing the citizens to calculate the property tax every year is illegal and liable to be restrained and quashed.

Sreemathi Hariprasad, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

Will the authorities clarify?

Recently, there was a big advertisement in most of the newspapers about submitting Aaadhaar card details to LPG distributors to avail of the subsidy. It gave a format which requires the xerox of the front of the Aadhaar Card.

But the Aadhaar card sent by the UIAID is about 10 inches long and the bottom quarter of the card, separated from the rest by a dotted line, contains the photograph, the card number, the bar code, name and year of birth on the front and the address at the back. Many people have assumed that this portion (which is the size of a visiting card and fits in a wallet) is the actual Aadhaar card and so have cut at the dotted line. One such person called our office and said that he has only that portion of the original card and wanted to know if a xerox of the front and back of that portion will do. Will some official from the the oil companies clarify?

P.M. Bhat, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Waste of money

On 1st Main, V.V. Puram, Mysore City Corporation has paved the footpath with interlocking tiles at enormous expense. This raises some questions.

1. A 5-foot wide footpath is more than sufficient.  A 10-foot wide footpath would qualify as a "Rajamarga" level footpath! Where then is the need of paving the entire space of about 25 feet between the road and the compound of the adjoining houses?  

2. Interlocking tiles no doubt allow some percolation of rain water. But when it rains heavily, most of the water will end up on the street (since the footpath is sloping into the street) and destroy the asphalt. This is basic no-no of road design. The footpath has a nice canopy of shade-giving trees. They might now die because of reduced percolation of rain water. Who designed and executed the footpath? 

It appears that we have spent unnecessarily on an extra-wide footpath and will spend more repairing the road which will need resurfacing very often.

Dwarkanath Narayan, Mysore Grahakara Parishat