|
|
Fruits & vegetables out of reach
However, food was not the only worrying factor during the year. The large number of accidents involving buses , trains and boats (and a few near-misses in the aviation sector), brought to the fore the flagrant violation of safety norms by mass transportation service providers. It also focused on the need for creating safety consciousness in the users of these services. Consumers are victims Two of the worst train accidents witnessed during 2013, for example, highlighted the urgent need for the Indian railways to educate consumers on the dangers of crossing the railway lines and also take appropriate measures to prevent it at railway stations. In both these accidents, on August 19 and November 2, a large number of passengers were run over by trains as they were crossing the railway tracks. Water transportation too had its share of tragedies, at least ten of them reported during the year, taking a total toll of 450. Today, modern technology gives us better and more sophisticated vehicles that are also safer and quicker. Yet, transporters as well as law-enforcement agencies, ignore even the basic safety precautions and the victims are the consumers. I refer here to the two horrific accidents witnessed on October 30 and November 14, where Volvo buses caught fire after a collision — the total toll from the two accidents was 52. Wake-up call for banks Equally horrifying was the dastardly attack on a lone woman at an ATM in Bangalore by a hatchet -wielding robber. The incident was a wake-up call to all banks to tighten security at ATMs, but barring those cities where the police threatened to shut down ATMs that had no guards, in all other cities and towns, it was business as usual. Consumers have a right to safe goods and services and this includes banking services. However, a highly retrograde order of the National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (delivered on October 25) holding that a bank was not under any obligation to protect the bank customers, while inside the bank (State Bank of Patiala vs Krishan Kaul, RP no 1554 of 2012) delivered a blow to this right. This order was in sharp contrast to the Commission's earlier order in col D.S Sachar vs Punjab and Sind Bank (RP no 1046 of 2003A). where it had held the bank liable for its failure to provide adequate security measures in the bank, as mandated by the RBI. Both were similar — a thief had snatched the money from the hand of the customer as he was handing it over to the cashier. nothing seemed to go right for the consumers in 2013. May the consumers become determined to fight for their rights in 2014!
|
||