|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consumers are often victims of poor quality water supplied by the civic authorities. Besides water-borne diseases in many districts of the country, consumers suffer the debilitating effects of high levels of toxic heavy metals and even pesticides and other chemicals in water. Now two recent orders of the apex body have opened the doors of the court to petitions from citizens on the poor quality of water. Both the orders give directions to the municipal bodies to ensure the safety of water supplied to the citizens. Interestingly, in 1994, when a complaint seeking redressal against the poor quality of water supplied by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) was filed before it, the apex court was of the view that the consumer forum had no jurisdiction to address such issues, and that the petition, more in the nature of a public interest litigation, should be filed in a regular court of law. This was challenged before the Supreme Court by the petitioners—Consumer Education and Research Centre and the families of those who had died of jaundice in an epidemic that had swept Ahmedabad in 1993. The Supreme Court directed the consumer court to adjudicate over the case. (Subsequently, the law was also amended, giving the courts wider powers). In this case, the apex court directed the AMC to (a) inspect the water tanks every fortnight to ensure that they are not contaminated; (b) ensure that they are properly sealed to prevent contamination through animals entering the tank or through any other source; (c) test the water from the source after every 15 days and ensure that it conforms to ISI standards; (d) file the results with the deputy municipal commissioner of the zone; (e) replace all old and corroded or leaking pipes; (f) adhere to World Health Organisation’s guidelines on "Framework for safe drinking water;" and (g) publish periodically in newspapers, the results of water testing. It also awarded Rs 50,000 as costs to the petitioner. In the second case, filed by Brij Mohan of Nurpur Bedi, Ropar district, Punjab, the apex court made it clear that the civic authorities have to supply water conforming to ISI standards. It also awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 for the suffering undergone by the complainant’s mother on account of unsafe drinking water and Rs 5,000 towards costs. What is most interesting about this case is that it was filed by a resident of a village. Most of the time, it is urban consumers who make use of the court for redressal of their complaints, while rural consumers may not even be aware of the protection law. Here, the complainant’s case was that his mother had suffered from severe abdominal problems because of the unsafe water supplied under the rural water supply scheme, and he feared that more and more villagers would fall sick if they continued to drink such substandard water. However, despite repeated complaints to the authorities, no action had been taken, forcing him to seek the intervention of the court. It was discovered that certain parametres like turbidity, hardness, presence of iron and calcium were far higher than the desirable limits prescribed under the ISI standards for drinking water. Turbidity in water may be caused by plankton and other microscopic organisms, silt or clay and, obviously, it is harmful, particularly when it is beyond permissible limits. Besides, it is also difficult to disinfect turbid water and render it safe. In fact, turbidity protects organisms from the disinfectant and turbidity also provides absorption sites for chemicals that may be harmful. Similarly, even though iron is an essential element in human nutrition, long-time consumption of drinking water with a high concentration of iron can lead to liver diseases. It is for these reasons that the standards for water quality specifies permissible limits for calcium, magnesium, chlorides, fluorides, nitrates, sulphates, iron, etc. In this case, when compared with the ISI standards, the water analysis showed that the water was not potable. However, the courts at the district and the state level dismissed his complaint, but Brij Mohan persisted and filed a revision petition before the apex court, which directed the authorities to ensure that the water supplied to the village conformed to the ISI standards, and said the order should be complied with within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Consumers around the
country should now use the courts to enforce better quality in the
water supplied by municipalities and water boards.
|
||
|
|
||
