Petition on Mysore Master Plan

MGP has been studying the Master Plan for Mysore Nanjangud Local Planning Area - 2031 prepared by MUDA. Though the Master Plan seeks to preserve the character of the city, its provisions as they stand now would actually lead to the opposite. If the present Master Plan is approved, the city centre would be further congested and this congestion could spread to other areas of the city which are now serene. Many provisions of the Master Plan will lead Mysore, a Heritage City, on the same path which Bengaluru, once a Garden city, has gone.

MGP has created a page on Facebook  which explains the shortcomings of the Master Plan in detail and suggestions to overcome them. MGP requests the public of Mysore to go through this page and if convinced by arguments presented there, sign a e-petition here urging the government to make the necessary changes and not approve the Master Plan as it stands now.

Ashok Kacker, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Supreme Court Order on Aadhaar is Being Flouted

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent decision (given on 23-9-13) has said that no person should suffer for not getting the Adhaar card. But this order is being flouted by PDS shops and LPG dealers.

PDS outlets in Mysore are demanding Aadhaar card/number as a precondition for selling fair price ration items. Many people are suffering the loss of ration only because they have not enrolled for Aadhaar. This is probably happening in other parts of Karnataka also.

The same thing is happening for LPG also. Many people are suffering the loss of entitled LPG supply only because they have not enrolled for Aadhaar.

MGP has sent a copy of the Supreme Court order to the Government of Karnataka and asked it to issue necessary directions to all departments to immediately cease demanding production of Aadhaar card/number from the public for providing them benefits or services. It has said that insistence by officials on Aadhaar card may constitute contempt of the order of the Supreme Court.

R.Chandra Prakash, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

New team for MGP

A new Executive Committee of Mysore Grahakara Parishat was installed at its 24th annual general body meeting held recently. The Committee which will serve for the period 2013-2016 consists of Prof. R. Chandra Prakash - President, Ashok Kacker - Working President, Vishwas Krishna - Secretary, K.R. Seshadri - Treasurer, Maj. Gen. (Rtd.) S.G. Vombatkere, B.V. Shenoy, Uma Shenoi, Prof. S. Sobana and Prof. S.Sekhar.  The photos are in the same order.

Complaints about bus service

MGP had recently issued a press release asking the public of Mysore to sent it complaints regarding the city bus service. The response was very good and more than 80 complaints were received. MGP has forwarded to the Divisional Controller, KRSTC a summary of the problems classified into five priorities for convenience.

1. Frequency and Timing Problems: There are too few buses plying many routes which cover schools and colleges and are heavily patronized (Nos. 10, 72, 135 for example). There appear to be too many buses on some routes (such as 116) which can be redeployed on the needed routes. On the routes which have several buses plying, the bus schedules have to be strictly followed to avoid clustering of buses at the same time leading to long waits for the next bus.

2. Introduction of New Routes and Modification of Existing Routes: Some suggestions are: Central Bus Stand to Naidu Nagar via KR Hospital, CBS to Bogadi, circular route buses without going through CBS, buses plying the same route in the return direction also, Anand Nagar to CBS via CGHS hospital, rerouting more buses through Doctors' Corner in Gokulam 3rd Stage, Ekalavyanagar to Metagalli, circular routes in both directions connecting Railway Station, Suburban Bus Stand and CBS.

3. Enforcement of Official Bus-stops: This includes cases of buses not stopping at the designated stops (e.g. St. Philomena's College and Akshay Bhandar), irregular stops at the traffic intersections (e.g. near V.V. Puram Post Office), illegal stops and turns, violating one-way rule in the early/late hours of traffic, awkward parking at stops (e.g. SBS), blocking of regular bus stops by other vehicles and vendors (e.g. P.K. Sanatorium), blocking of traffic by up and down buses stopping next to each other (e.g. Surya Bakery).

4. Need for the Staff to be More People-friendly: There have been complaints of ill-treatment of senior citizens, not helping the ladies and senior citizens to get seats reserved for them, not issuing change, talking on cell phone or with other staff while driving, not using indicators while making turns, sudden braking and stopping in the middle of the road, changing the specified routes (e.g. 119 avoiding Doctors' Corner in Gokulam), etc.

5. Other Issues: There have been complaints about poorly maintained buses, buses with no destination boards or numbers on the side, no timetable at important bus-stops, nonworking electronic systems (ITS), stopping of buses for long durations at the stage ends to issue tickets, lack of good bus shelters at many places, too much delay in the arrival of relief bus at times of breakdown, etc. People have also complained that concessions are given to senior citizens in Volvo and other AC buses in Bengaluru, but the same facility is not available in Mysore. MGP has suggested that the 1st set of problems can be best solved by conducting periodic scientific surveys of the bus occupancy rates on all routes at various times of the day (including Sundays and holidays). This will help employing the right number of buses on a route and determining the best schedule. The public can also be surveyed periodically to find out if new routes are needed or if the service needs to be improved in any way, i.e., problem sets 2-5. MGP has also recommended that a complaint cell may be established in KSRTC with SMS and E-mail facilities to receive and redress the grievances of the public quickly on the lines of a system operating in the railways.

Prof. B.S. Shankara, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Courier Service and Law

Courier industry is one of the fastest growing service sectors in India. Estimated to be growing at a rate of 25% per year, the private courier industry probably has more than 50% market share of the mail service. Here we discuss some legal aspects of the courier industry. 

Is Courier Service Legal?

Courier services are operating in India for decades. But according to Sec. 4 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, private parties can not convey letters. Conveying letters is a privilege reserved only for the government. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to update the antiquated law to permit private couriers, but as far as we can tell, Sec. 4 still stands and so strictly speaking, private courier systems are illegal!

If you have problems with a courier service, can you get legal redress? 

Even though the Indian Post Office Act prohibits private couriers, the parliament has passed a law, The Carriage by Road Act, 2007 which explicitly covers private couriers! TCRA fixes the liability of couriers if the material sent through couriers is lost or damaged or not delivered due to the negligence of the courier. In such cases, one can file a case in the civil court under TCRA and obtain compensation for the loss suffered. The consumer also has the option of filing a complaint before the consumer court under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and  get compensation in a speedy and inexpensive manner.  

It may appear that there is a problem with using the CPA and approaching the consumer courts. Sec. 14(1)(d) of the CPA allows compensation only for any loss due to the negligence of the opposite party. If the loss is not attributable to the negligence of the opposite party, you can not get compensation. According to Sec. 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, any person who approaches a court to give judgment on a liability dependent on the existence of facts, must prove that those facts exist. Therefore, if the consumer approaches the consumer court for compensation for the negligence of the courier, he must prove that the courier was negligent. The article you sent through a courier may be lost or damaged, but how can you prove that it was because of the NEGLIGENCE of the courier? This is not easy at all.  

Here is where The Carriage by Roads Act comes to help. According to Sec. 12 of the Act, in a complaint against the courier, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove the negligence of the courier. It is to be assumed that the loss, damage or nondelivery of the letter was due to the negligence of the courier unless the courier proves otherwise.  

Is there a limit on the compensation you can get? 

The conditions printed on the backside of the receipt given by the courier company usually include a statement limiting the liability of the courier to Rs. 100 in case of loss or damage. But if these conditions were not explained to you and you did not sign the consignment note, the conditions are not binding and the consumer court can award a higher compensation. A judgment of the National Consumer Commission (III 92003) CPJ 160 (NC)) can be quoted in your favour to obtain higher compensation.

M.Akarsh, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

Obituary- A R Venkatesan

Noted social worker, A.R. Venkatesan passed away in his Chamundipuram home Tuesday night after a brief illness. He was 77.

After retiring from Indian Information Service in 1994, A.R. Venkatesan settled down in Mysore and devoted his life to social service. He was an active member of numerous organizations, notably, Mysore Grahakara Parishat, Elder Citizens Council, People for Animals, Central Government Pensioners Association, and Mysore Lok Swaraj Andolan. As a coordinator of CPR Environmental Education Centre, Chennai, he organized more than 2,000 programmes all over South India including, environmental awareness lectures for school and college children, workshops for teachers and other professionals, seminars on environmental law, film shows, field trips for children, competitions about environmental awareness, etc. He initiated steps to save several "Devara Kaadu"s. He volunteered his service as traffic warden for several years. In addition to his work with organizations, he worked in his individual capacity for numerous charitable causes and for educating needy children. 

He leaves behind his wife, two children, two grandchildren and a host of relatives and friends. In his death, Mysore has lost a notable contributor to the society at large.

A Clarification from MGP

We read with interest the letter of C.R.Krishna, Proprietor, Little Gas Company (SOM 27-8-13) on the double credit consumers receive after receiving delivery of their first cylinder under the DBT scheme. He has given a very clear explanation of how LPG subsidy works and how the government is actually giving an advance on the purchase of the next cylinder.

But in the last paragraph of the letter it is mentioned that MGP had also raised query on the same subject. All the press releases sent by MGP are sent through its official e-mail address and a survey of the sent mail shows no record of any MGP communication on this particular subject. This is just a clarification.

B.V. Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

"Maximum Retail Price" Has No Value!

One frequently sees shops, hotels and clubs charge more than the  maximum retail price (MRP). Most people assume that selling items for more than the MRP must be illegal. But is it really so? A careful study reveals that there may be no law which punishes charging more than the MRP.

Let us first look at hotels and clubs charging more than MRP. Consumer courts are often giving decisions against such hotels and clubs. For example, in the case reported in I(2011) CPJ 13 NC, the National Consumer Commission upheld the order of a District Forum imposing a fine on a hotel for having charged more than MRP on some soft drinks. While such decisions of consumer courts are to be welcomed from the point of view of the consumer, unfortunately, they go against an order of the Supreme Court.

This order of the Supreme Court order (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Associated Hotels of India, AIR 1972 SC 1131) given in 1972 makes MRP applicable only to retail sales, i.e., goods sold in shops. So food and drinks consumed in hotels, clubs, restaurants, airplanes, etc. may be sold at prices above the MRP. The Supreme Court held that such food and drinks can not be considered retail sales since they are always accompanied by service.

But it appears that most consumer courts are not aware of this order, because they keep awarding compensation against hotels and restaurants which sell packaged commodities in excess of MRP. Hotels, restaurants or airplanes are exempt from prosecution if they sell foods and drinks at more than MRP. 

Let us now look at shops charging more than MRP. The law (Legal Metrology Act, 2009) related to MRP has been carelessly drafted and so, strictly speaking, even shops which sell above MRP can not be punished under this law.

According to Sec. 18 of the Act (and Sec. 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 made under the Act), the declaration on any package commodity must have the MRP of the commodity. Sec. 36 of the Act prescribes a penalty of Rs. 25,000 for selling a packaged commodity which does not conform to the declarations on the package, but it appears that the nonconformity refers only to weight, number, etc. and not to the price. So there is no explicit prohibition of sale above the MRP in the Act. But Sec. 18
of the Rules prohibits the retail sale of any packaged commodity at a price higher than the printed MRP. So selling above MRP is not prohibited by the Act but is prohibited by the Rules made under the Act.

There are several Supreme Court orders which prescribe the limits of Rules made under an Act. They all say that Rules cannot extend the boundaries of the Act under which they have been made (e.g. Bharathidasan University Vs. All-India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 767). In the present case, the Legal Metrology Act only mandates that the price be printed on the package whereas the Rules go impermissibly further by stipulating that price charged can not exceed the printed price. Therefore, this part of the Rules is invalid. In other words, there is no limit on the price charged! Not printing MRP is against the law, but not selling above MRP. MRP becomes just a fiction.

It is amazing that the legal experts and bureaucrats who draft legislation are ignorant of such legal basics. They should have included the prohibition of charging a price higher than the printed price in the Act itself and not just in the Rules. By not doing it, they have negated the very purpose of MRP.

Many consumer courts have said that charging more than the MRP is unfair trade practice and imposed penalties (sometimes heavy) on the vendors. But this may not be legally correct either. The CPA defines unfair trade practice in Sec. 2(1)(r) as an unfair method adopted "for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods" and proceeds to make a list of unfair trade practices. Charging more than the MRP is not included the list. One may argue that the list is not comprehensive. Even accepting this argument, there is a problem. Selling a product above MRP can not promote the sale, use or supply of that product and so fails to meet the definition of unfair trade practice given in the CPA. It does not matter if everyone thinks that some trade practice is unfair, but if the trade practice does not promote the sale, use or supply of the goods, it is not unfair trade practice according to the CPA. Such is the case with selling above MRP. So the consumer courts can not punish it as an unfair trade practice.

Finally, there is another provision of the CPA which refers to MRP. Sec. 2(1)(c) of the CPA lists the types of complaints which can be filed in consumer courts. They are, unfair or restrictive trade practice, defective goods, deficient service, charging excessive price (which includes charging more than the price printed on the package) and selling goods or services hazardous to life. Actions which can be taken by the consumer courts on these complaints are described in Sec.14 of the CPA, but maybe because of sloppiness in writing the law, this section covers all other types of complaints except charging excessive price. So as the CPA stands now, one can complain about selling above MRP, but the consumer court can not give any order against it! Even if the Act prescribed what type of action the consumer courts can take against selling above MRP, it is still not clear if such an order is legal. According to Sec. 3 of the CPA, the Act is not in derogation of the provisions of any other act and since the Legal Metrology Act itself does not prescribe a punishment for selling above MRP, CPA may not be able to go beyond it and prescribe such a punishment.

To conclude, there seems to be no law against selling above MRP and no court can punish any one for selling a product above MRP. By sheer carelessness in lawmaking, the very purpose of having an MRP has been
defeated!

B.Vaikunth Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat