The Times of India 24.11.2009
Metrowater's failure to supply water not deficiency in service, says state consumer forum
Jeeva, TNN 24 November 2009, 12:51am IST
CHENNAI: Failure by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) to provide water supply was not deficiency in service, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has ruled. The commission gave the ruling recently after setting aside a 2006 order of a district consumer forum that had asked Metrowater to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to eleven residents in Tiruvanmiyur.
Residents of 24th and 29th Cross Streets in Tiruvanmiyur had in 2005 moved the Chennai (South) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum stating that Metrowater, which was collecting water charges, was not supplying water through pipes in their area despite repeated representation and that supplies through tanker lorries were not sufficient. Stating that they were Metrowater consumers, the complainants appealed to the district forum to order compensation.
In its submission, Metrowater argued that it had supplied water through tanker lorries to the complainants' area after receiving information that supply through pipes was not adequate. There was thus no deficiency in service, the board said. It added that water charges were being collected not only for water but also toward sewerage services.
In June 2006, the district forum ordered Metrowater to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to the complainants for deficiency in service and directed it to "ensure regular water supply in the two streets if supply had been maintained in all other areas".
Challenging the order, Metrowater moved the SCDRC. On a perusal of the case, the commission said that if such demands were accepted, it would cause "untold misery and hardship to the CMWSSB" since the board supplying water depended on the monsoon and availability of water in the city reservoirs. It held that Metrowater had supplied water in tanker lorries when there was no water supply through pipes and, hence, no deficiency in service could be attributed to it.
The commission also stated that there was no yardstick to determine the quantum of water that should be supplied to each resident. Charges were collected for the supply of water alone, based on meter reading. Therefore, no one could claim as a matter of right that s/he was entitled to so much of water and that not providing that quantity of water would amount to deficiency in service, the commission observed.
