Gati puts Snail Mail to shame
Debkumar Bhadra | Musings of an Islander | South Andaman
It
was on 24 February, 2016
that I found a particular product in an e-commerce website suiting the need of my better half and decided to
order for the same. In a bid to qualify for free shipping, I added another item
and completed the formalities of placing the order online. Following day,
received a couple of emails from the ecommerce site through which I understood that
the order has been dispatched as two separate consignments. One of the item was
dispatched by Speed Post and the other one, intended for my better half,
was dispatched by Gati
with tracking number 530971286.
As
soon as I came to know that Gati-Kwe
has been selected as the courier, bitter memories of an earlier experience with
the particular courier flashed before me. I therefore thought it worth
informing the e-commerce site that since Gati-Kwe has been selected as
the courier, delivery of the instant order is highly uncertain. The customer
care department responded saying “feedback has been forwarded to concerned shipping
department” and went on to assure me that the product would be delivered on
priority shortly. The customer care department also requested me to wait till 9th
of March,
the deadline for delivery. I had no option but to wait, with my fingers crossed
and breathe put on hold.
I
therefore concluded it is a case fit for escalation at higher levels. I wrote
to the customer care department sharing details of an earlier order wherein Gati returned the parcel without making any effort to
deliver it to my address. I also shared an email received from Gati customer care which read “… shipment is
still in transit… Assured delivery date is 09-May-2016”
Which means the shipment picked up on 26
Feb, would reach me after 74 days! This was
highly disappointing since the ecommerce site mentioned 9th March
as the estimated delivery date.
“…We
try our level best to provide convenient and stress free shopping to our
customers but in this case we haven’t met the standard” read an email from
Member of Leadership team of the concerned ecommerce site. To make up with the
unpleasant experience the ecommerce site added a Gift Card to my account (106%
of the order value) as a promotional/goodwill
gesture. Further keeping in terms with its reputation of giving customers a
satisfying shopping experience, the e-commerce site created a
replacement treating the earlier shipment as lost in transit. Such proactive
and customer friendly approach of the e-commerce site did calmed the
frustration, but given to understand that the replacement packet has once again
been shipped by Gati
under track ID 561210052, I feel action of the shipping department has
undone the rapport the e-commerce site has built over time.
It
is no surprise that after waiting for more than a month since the packet was
picked up by Gati,
whereabouts of the original as well as the replacement parcels remained unknown
to everyone including the e-commerce site.
I
tried and tested every option, including phone calls and repeated emails, but nothing
could bring the sloth (read Gati-Kwe) to activity. While Gati customer
care responded to my email stating Assured delivery date is 9 May, customer
care executive from Chennai said over phone that they do not deliver to
my address. Meanwhile the consignment which remained untraceable for over a
month was received at Port Blair Hub on 31
March. After keeping the consignment
on hold for two weeks at Port Blair Hub, a lady over phone said they will not deliver to
my address and insisted pickup from Port Blair Hub. Such is the kind of service that Gati-Kwe
is delivering to its customers.
Question
is if Gati
does not deliver to my address, why did it accept the consignment? Why did it mention
Assured
delivery date as 9 May in response to email query? It is a clear case of
misleading customers amounting to unfair trade practice.
Post
script : No snail has been or intended to be hurt or harmed while putting together this piece.
This article has been carried in the Port Blair edition of Echo of India dated April 7, 2016
This article has been carried in the Port Blair edition of Echo of India dated April 7, 2016


Comments