Writing about personal experiences in a newspaper column is not a good idea, but if an experience can inform the readers about how systems do or don’t work then one wants to share it. In July this year, we had to endure a 60-hour journey from Tokyo to Islamabad because our national carrier cancelled the flight. After languishing at the Narita airport for 12 hours, the passengers were sent to Dubai where they were in transit for 24 hours without accommodation arranged by the PIA. Then they were sent to Peshawar and from there the passengers had to arrange their own transport. With women and children, it became a nightmare for the families. At the airport in Tokyo, the PIA staff had advised the passengers that if they paid from their pockets and kept the hotel bills in Dubai, they could claim reimbursement from PIA in Islamabad. After reaching Islamabad we contacted the PIA office in Blue Area and were advised to send the bills by email to the Karachi office. For four passengers of our family the bill was hardly $500. More than the amount, it was the passengers’ rights that were at stake. We sent an email to the PIA office in Karachi and to our delight got a prompt response, Senior officer of customer relations Mohammad Yousuf was polite in his response, informing us that our reimbursement claim had been sent to the relevant people within PIA. After a couple of weeks, we sent a reminder to which the same reply came. Then another reminder was sent. In short, after more than a month they informed us that it was the passengers’ fault that they took the Dubai flight rather than wait for the next PIA flight from Tokyo to Islamabad. This was ridiculous to say the least because the next PIA flight was after five days and no family could wait for that long. In fact, the passengers had no choice but to accept the Dubai flight that PIA was offering. Anyway, with this denial to offer any reimbursement, one looked for other available redress mechanisms. The best appeared to be the federal ombudsman’s office. It has a well-functioning online complaint system. An application was duly submitted and within no time the complaint was registered with the number WMS-ONL/0005928. If our federal institutions are that responsive to public grievances, what else can you ask for? An additional secretary of the ombudsman office sent a letter to the PIA top management, asking them to appear for the hearing. A copy of the letter was sent to the complainant who was very impressed by the strong tone of the letter which clearly mentioned that if PIA did not appear for the hearing ‘the matter shall be decided based on available evidence’. On the first hearing, the complainant appeared with wife and children who had suffered on the said flight. Nobody from PIA appeared and the hearing was adjourned to a later date. Another letter was sent with a similar message. On the second hearing, again nobody came from PIA and the complainant demanded that the matter ‘be decided based on the available evidence’. The ombudsman staff called PIA legal services which informed them that the PIA lawyer who was supposed to appear was in Gilgit, so another legal adviser was being sent. After a couple of hours’ wait the adviser appeared, bringing the file of another complaint and clueless about the case at hand. The hearing was adjourned again. On the third hearing, the PIA representative demanded more time to respond, which was granted with strict reprimands by the additional secretary. The complainant was excused from the next hearing as he had already appeared at three hearings. After a couple of weeks, the case was decided. The letter sent to the complainant repeated the PIA version that it was the passengers’ choice to go to Dubai and not take the next PIA flight. One wonders how passengers could wait for five days for the next PIA flight and how the case could be decided without challenging the defence version. So much for public grievances. Now, one is convinced that there is absolutely no need to pump in more billions to bail PIA out with public money. It is not the government’s business to run an airline that is highly overstaffed and inefficient. The country’s taxpayers have every right to ask the government about this waste of money. If passengers are treated this way, how are they likely to travel internationally with the national carrier again, unless of course they don’t have any other choice? A 60-hour journey from Tokyo to Islamabad was bad, and the response one gets after filing valid complaints is even worse. Conclusion: The ombudsman’s office – since it also runs with public money – should have officers who are sympathetic to the public. Accepting a version that is not supported by facts and without any counter-argument is a mockery of justice that we see at all levels in Pakistan. It is a public right to challenge any partial behaviour, be it from civil and military bureaucracy or from the judiciary. If we don’t challenge it now, the morass will continue as it has done for the past 70 years.
The writer holds a PhD from theUniversity of Birmingham, UK and works in Islamabad. Email: Mnazir1964@yahoo.co.uk
