Date:23/08/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/08/23/stories/2006082318420400.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Order against Metrowater modified

K. T. Sangameswaran

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reduces compensation

When water connection had been given, supply also ought to have been managed
Supply has not been regular for two years, in spite of oral and written representations

Alternative arrangements by the board are meant for all citizens

CHENNAI : While modifying an order of a district forum against the Madras (now Chennai) Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board in a case of irregular water supply, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has said when water connection had been given, supply also ought to have been managed.

The Commission, comprising the president, Justice K. Sampath, and members R. Vanaroja and Pon Gunasekaran, however, said the district forum's directive to the Board to pay Rs.20,000 towards expenses incurred by the complainant was a little harsh. It reduced the amount to Rs.10,000.

VSM Garden Street Residents Welfare Sangam, Ashok Nagar, represented by its secretary, complained to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), that the residents were given water connection, but the supply had not been regular for two years, in spite of oral and written representations.

The board submitted that the sangam had not made any representation. When the residents were not getting water through pipeline, the board provided water by installing three steel tanks each with a capacity of 3,000 litres and put up three India Mark II pumps. The district forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the board to pay Rs.20,000 towards expenses incurred by the association for purchasing water during 1992-93 and 1993-94 and Rs.1000 as costs.

The board preferred an appeal challenging the order.

The Commission said documents revealed there was an irregular water supply. Those days were difficult and the authorities did their best to ensure that citizens got at least some water. Water was transported from far-off places for supply. Even according to the complainant, the supply was only irregular. The alternative arrangements made by the board in the absence of supply through pipeline were meant for all citizens whether they had pipeline connection or not. "However, having given water connection to the members of the complainant association, the opposite party should not have been content with irregular supply of water, " the Commission said.