Thanks to good roads available in several parts of the country and improved quality of public transport, many consumers now use bus services to travel from one city to the other. The Mumbai-Pune Expressway is one example of how a system of this sort can render the railway redundant and offer excellent inter city transport by road. However, indiscipline by passengers and bus conductors or drivers can turn the journey into a nightmare, as a consumer discovered recently.
Arvind Varde, a retired professor of pharmacology from Mumbai’s GS Medical College was booked on a Mumbai-Pune bus by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation’s (MSRTC) Volvo service (christened ‘Shivneri’) on October 17 2007. Due to depart at 7.30am, the bus left Dadar depot at 7.50am. At 9am, the driver halted the bus at Khopoli for a tea break.
About 10 minutes later, the passengers of the bus returned to the bus but found that they could not carry on with the journey since three passengers were ‘missing’. The driver went in search of them, located them and asked them to return to the bus immediately.
However, the passengers took their own time and returned to the bus after fifteen minutes. When some of the passengers admonished the latecomers, there was a verbal altercation on the bus.
A common story, as most passengers who have had the experience of travelling by the MSRTC will say. But Varde did not take things lying down. He wrote to the traffic manager of the MSRTC demanding for an explanation on how such events were allowed to take place on their so called prestigious buses and further demanded to know the guidelines that the MSRTC had in place for tackling such situations.
Six or more months later, the depot manager of the MSRTC at Parel wrote to Varde in response to his complaint. In his letter, the manager acknowledged that such an incident did take place and further stated that it was “unnecessary’” and that MSRTC would take steps to avoid such incidents in future.
The letter also said that the names of latecomers will be announced on the public address system at the restaurant and that traffic controllers at Dadar have been asked to ensure that buses depart in time. There is however no assurance that the bus would leave in time to punish the wrong-doers if they did not return in time.
Varde’s action and its response is a clear indicator to consumers to raise their voice whenever the systems in place break down or do not work efficiently. Most consumers rarely take the trouble of complaining to authorities like the MSRTC when the services of the latter are deficient.
Rising competition and aware consumers have made even the public sector organisations wake up to the fact that the consumer is a powerful person to respect and honour. If such events are repeated, consumers should use Varde’s example to demonstrate that the MSRTC does not learn from experience and petition the authorities or consumer courts to get redressal for their grievances.
