The Mapusa Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI) Abhay Savaiker had summoned the complainant for a ‘hearing’ feigning ignorance as to when the complaint was received by his department.
His senior officer Assistant Director of Transport (ADT) Meghashyam Pilankar promptly acknowledged the computer generated SMS complaint made via complaint service on 51969, on the same day (Tuesday, May 27). It was more than a week later that the AMVI Savaiker called the complainant, claiming to have received the complaint the previous day (Monday, June 9) and summoned the complainant for an immediate hearing at the Mapusa transport office on Thursday, June 12, 2014 at 2.30 pm. But to the shock of the complainant within minutes of the AMVI’s phone call, he received a threatening phone call from the bus operator against whom the commuter had complained.
The complainant further discloses that on the day of the hearing, the AMVI Savaiker informed him that the RTO had issued challans but then why was the complainant summoned for a ‘hearing’ by the RTO official if action was taken, the complainant sought to know? Was it to merely harass the public and ultimately discourage them from utilising this innovative complaint service of the Directorate of Transport through various hurdles put in their path?
Since as per the SMS complaint facility on 51969, it is mandatory that a reply is promptly sent to the complainant informing him/her of the action taken on his/her complaint. But here too, there are different yardsticks being applied within the Directorate of Transport.
For example, while the South Goa Enforcement Section sends the following sms replies: “Your complaint enfs 20140608124049 has been successfully closed. Action taken – complaint attended and found that temporary permit has been issued to this bus. Bus owner has been warned regarding reserved seats and issue of tickets.”
“Your complaint enfs 20140521112250 has been successfully closed. Action taken – CR issued on 21/05/2014 book no 3967/25.”
The North Goa Enforcement Section replies: “Your complaint enfn 20140419115046 has been successfully closed. Action taken – Officials were testing/checking said vehicle”
The Quepem ADT replies: “Your complaint adtque 20140522153722 has been successfully closed. Action taken – challan issued by MVI Mashelkar.”
While the Margao ADT replies: “Your complaint adtmar 20140529172240 has been successfully closed. Action taken – Issued challan and fine collected of Rs 700.” The replies of the Panaji ADT are the most startling: “Your complaint adtpan 20140414120014 has been successfully closed. Action taken.” There is absolutely no mention of the action taken by the concerned RTO officer!
