Campa Cola Judgement and Apartment Owners

The Campa Cola Compound (Worli, Mumbai) case is a classic case of apartment buyers falling prey to the unholy alliance of greedy builders and unethical officials. In 1982, the builders were permitted to construct up to five floors, yet they built several illegal floors on each building, including two towers, without any BMC nod. Having declared the additional floors illegal and ordered for their demolition, in October the Supreme Court granted a four week stay as breathing time to the residents of Campa Cola Society to vacate their illegal flats. The apex court said residents could stay till 11 November only. Instead of complying with the decision of the Supreme Court the residents were attempting to seek the government's help to overcome the problem through an Ordinance and stall the Supreme Court ruling. It is unfortunate that having failed in that attempt the residents are now facing the eviction and demolition of the flats found to be illegal by the Supreme Court.

On 10th November 2013, the Mysore Grahakara Parishat at its monthly meeting had elaborately explained the precautions to be taken by an apartment buyer and had suggested that a copy of the CR, Completion Report issued by the competent authority is a must before a buyer takes possession of his new flat. The Campa Cola case is an example of what could happen if such legal requirements are not complied with. Very soon MGP is coming out with an folder listing Dos and Donts for apartment buyers in Mysore.

The judgement can be read here (pdf).

R Chandraprakash, President, MGP

Can We Terminate The JUSCO Contract?

In recent days some citizens and politicians have called for termination of the JUSCO contract. Is termination of the JUSCO contract beneficial to our city? We believe that the whole affair is quite messy with no simple answers.

Let us begin at the signing of the contract. The JNNURM-funded project to upgrade Mysore's water supply infrastructure was divided and two tenders were floated for the works. The first one was to build major overhead tanks all over Mysore and supply them with water from the water treatment plants through large underground pipes. Nagarjuna Construction Company won this tender for Rs. 77 crores. The second tender was for doing all the work required to make the present intermittent non-pressurized water supply system into a continuous pressurized 24x7 water supply system and maintaining the system for 6 years. Twelve companies participated in the tender process. JUSCO won the tender with the lowest bid of Rs. 162 crores. Ranhill Water Services made the second lowest bid of Rs. 256 crores, Larsen & Toubro made the third lowest bid at Rs. 305 crores and the highest bid was Rs. 882 crores by Jain Irrigations Systems. So JUSCO's bid was by far the lowest bid.

The JUSCO bid was based on the figures (117,000 connections and 911 km-long pipeline network) given by Mysore City Corporation. Within a year of the beginning of the contract, JUSCO was supposed to carry out a survey, arrive at the actual number of connections and the length of the network and submit a revised estimate based on these figures. According to JUSCO, there were 175,000 connections (an excess of 50% over the MCC figure) and 1911 kms of pipeline (an excess of 110% over the MCC figure). Based on the new numbers, JUSCO submitted a revised estimate of Rs. 212 crores. According to the terms of the contract (Sec. 3.2.7), if the government did not suggest revisions to it within a month, the revised estimate was deemed to have been approved. It appears that the government responded with changes after 3 months and the changes were not acceptable to JUSCO. That is where we stand now. Negotiations are going on between JUSCO and the government in this regard, but nothing concrete has come out. In the meanwhile, JUSCO is finishing up the work covered by the original bid amount and is not taking up any new work. This will leave about half the city without upgradation of the pipeline network and installation of new meters.

In this scenario, let us see what might happen if the JUSCO contract is cancelled. JUSCO will surely approach an arbitrator as provided in the contract (Sec. 24.2). JUSCO might have botched up many things, but the government has also messed up by not rejecting the revised estimate within the specified period and thus becoming liable for the revised estimate of Rs. 212 crores. So the arbitrator may not decide against JUSCO. Even if the decision goes against JUSCO, the remainder of the work has to be tendered again. Based on the original bids, it will be in all likelihood far more costly than the Rs. 50 crores demanded by JUSCO to finish the remaining work. Is the quality of JUSCO work so bad that it is worth paying much more money to another company to finish the work? MCC will have to make this decision. If the quality of JUSCO work is really bad, should the work already done by it be redone by another company? MCC will have to make this decision also.

There are a lot of problems with this project, which should have been anticipated but were not. Some of them are:

1. Splitting the project into two: Nagarjuna Construction Company was given the contract of building the major overhead tanks and JUSCO was given the contract for laying pipes from these tanks to the consumers. If the location of the tanks is not proper, it is not possible to supply water to all consumers at the required pressure. As a result, if water is not being supplied to all consumers at the required pressure, it could be because the design of the pipe network is defective (which would be JUSCO responsibility) or because the location of the tanks is not proper (which would be the responsibility of Nagarjuna). JUSCO and Nagarjuna would blame each other and it would be hard to pin the blame. Such non-accountability should not have been allowed. Tenders should have been called for the combined works and not separately.

2. Making bulk water supply MCC's responsibility and distribution JUSCO's responsibility: The goal of the project is to provide Mysore 24x7 water supply. Dividing the supply responsibility into two again encourages non-accountability. If 24x7 supply is not achieved, JUSCO and MCC will blame each other and it will need an arbitrator to pin the blame.

3. Competence of government: The project was given to private parties because the government felt that its agencies are not competent to do it. If government agencies are not competent to design and execute the works, can they be competent to monitor and control the quality of work done by private agencies? This seems a basic problem with PPP (Private Public Partnership) projects. We have seen in the case of ADB-funded projects a decade ago numerous badly designed and poorly executed works which were approved and passed by the same government agencies as a result of which enormous amounts of money were spent with little lasting value for the city. We routinely see in road repair contracts and irrigation canal repair contracts poor substandard work passed by government agencies. If the competence of government agencies falls below a certain level, even PPPs will not help.

4. Defects in contract: There are numerous defects in the contract. One example is the condition that JUSCO should provide the new water connection to a spot 1 meter inside the customer's property. It is the responsibility of the property owner to lay the pipes from there to the water meter. It is very difficult to get labour for such a small job. Even if labour can be found, the payment demanded is huge. It is amazing that the framers of the contract did not anticipate this problem. They could have fixed the rates for doing this job and given the option of getting the job done by JUSCO or any other contractor to the customer himself. Another example is the common complaint that roads that have been dug up for laying new pipes have not been properly repaired leading to hardship for the locals. Filling the trenches with soil, compacting and resurfacing of the road in a definite time frame could all have been.

V Mahesha, MGP

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.