No redressal without compensation

Regulators are more concerned about the companies they govern, not consumer redressal

“Coffee is hot. It can scald you” – reading this warning on a Mcdonalds’ coffee cup always brought a smile to my lips as I remembered that an American court had awarded millions in damages to a lady who suffered from burns after spilling a Mcdonalds coffee.

Contrast this with my own harrowing experience last week when I decided to port my primary mobile number to another service provider. The porting ‘part’ went smoothly but then, I realised I was not getting any incoming calls. Anyone trying to get in touch was being disconnected.

Conversations with the telecom company’s call centre were frustrating and led to a variety of changes in phone settings, sim, and even instrument. Nothing worked. My dialogue with the telecom's call centre employees went on for three days and my primary number continued to be unavailable for the entire period. Then, I tried social media. Again, nothing.

Finally, I shot off emails to the chairman, head of business and other senior people. To their credit, the chairman’s office responded immediately. Thereafter, there was a flurry of activity and the issue was resolved in a matter of hours. I wonder what would have happened if I hadn't reached out to the chairman or other senior officials.

During the same time, I was also trying to make my service tax payment on March 31 through my bank. I happen to be one of its ‘privileged customer’. But the bank’s internet site as well as mobile app was down the whole day. This time I did not bother to complain and decided to stoically bear the interest cost of the delayed service tax payment.

These two examples point to one simple thing -- whether it is telecom or banking or airlines, insurance or any other industry, taking customers for granted is rife across sectors. And that happens despite the fact that most of these sectors having regulators. But regulators are more concerned about maintaining and improving the health of the companies governed by them. Consumer redressal comes later, perhaps, much, much later.

Courts, including consumer courts, are severely overburdened. Even in the few cases in which the judgments are decisive, the courts give a meagre compensation. The company/service provider continues to treat consumers shabbily because the small compensation does not hurt its books or damages reputation in any tangible manner.  

In the US, the telecom company and the bank would have had to pay a hefty compensation for deficiency in services. Perhaps, the compensation would have been so much that I wouldn’t have had to work for a living ever. In India, we need courts to award such exemplary damages, especially in blatant cases – just writing a scathing judgement is not enough.

Consumers are correct in being angry when service providers are jacking up prices in the name of providing services. Companies, on their part, claim that you cannot expect ‘US services at Indian prices’.  However, given the rate at which some sectors are increasing their prices, service providers are actually providing ‘Indian services at US prices’. It’s time the courts took cognizance of this. Then, we might have this warning: ‘Ice cream is frozen - You could catch a cold.’ I really don't mind it.

The author is a Sebi-registered investment advisor