Had to Do It!
There are moments when you don't really want to react.
You simply have to.
Not because you want sympathy. Not because you want to portray yourself as a victim. And certainly not because you believe you are always right.
Sometimes you react because something bigger than the incident itself bothers you.
For me, this particular incident with a client and inDrive became one of those moments.
The issue was not simply about a ride.
The issue was about how quickly a person can be labelled, how quickly a complaint can become a conclusion, and how easily the person on the weaker side is expected to accept that conclusion without being properly heard.
And that brings me to a much bigger problem in Pakistani society.
The Convenient Philosophy of “Customer Is Always Right”
We have imported a corporate slogan and somehow converted it into a social law:
Customer is always right.
No.
A customer can be right.
A customer can also be wrong.
A rider can be right.
A rider can also be wrong.
A company can make a mistake.
A worker can make a mistake.
The important thing is not deciding who is powerful.
The important thing is finding out what actually happened.
Unfortunately, we often skip that part.
Instead of investigation, we look for the easier answer.
Who complained?
The customer.
Then the customer must be right.
Who is being accused?
The rider.
Then the rider must be responsible.
And if the rider says, “Listen to my side,” suddenly he is considered argumentative, difficult, or dishonest.
This is not justice.
This is simply might is right wearing a corporate uniform.
My Own Mistake — And the Part I Accept
Let me be very clear.
I am not claiming that I handled the situation perfectly.
I didn't.
The ride was booked as a bike ride, but it was treated as a courier-type assignment. During the phone conversation, I was told that I would not be taking a normal ride and would instead be handling parcels.
I did ask a question.
How many parcels?
I assumed there would be parcels.
When I arrived, there were two thick packets and a shopper.
That was considerably different from what I had understood.
I am also not an experienced rider when it comes to carrying that amount of weight on a motorcycle. The bike did not handle the same way it normally does.
And here comes my mistake.
I had already invested my time in reaching there.
Instead of simply saying, “This isn't what I agreed to; I'm returning,” I thought:
Let's do it once. Then I'll go back to the office.
That was my error in judgment.
I accept that.
There is another point I cannot independently verify: I was told that one packet had been tied to my back. I know it remained on my back until I reached the destination, but I cannot independently establish exactly how it was secured.
And frankly, this is one of the reasons I generally avoid courier rides.
Because once you accept responsibility for transporting somebody else's belongings, the responsibility becomes much greater than simply riding a bike from Point A to Point B.
But a Mistake Is Not Automatically Theft
This is where I draw the line.
If I make a bad decision, call it a bad decision.
If I violate a platform rule, identify the rule and explain the violation.
If I mishandle somebody's property, investigate what happened.
If I am responsible for damage, establish that responsibility.
But if someone jumps from:
“Something went wrong”
to
“You are a thief,”
then I have every right to challenge that conclusion.
There is a huge difference between negligence, poor judgment, misunderstanding, procedural violation and theft.
These words are not interchangeable.
Calling someone a thief is not a minor complaint.
It attacks a person's character.
And once society becomes comfortable throwing such labels around without properly establishing facts, anybody can become the next target.
The Pakistani Problem: The Powerful Side Gets the Benefit of the Doubt
This is not limited to ride-hailing.
We see it everywhere.
A customer complains about a shopkeeper.
The shopkeeper must be wrong.
A junior employee disputes a senior.
The junior must be “problematic.”
A tenant complains about a landlord.
The tenant must be difficult.
A consumer complains about a company.
The company responds with a standard apology and closes the matter.
A worker says, “Please investigate.”
The response becomes:
“The customer has complained, so you need to explain yourself.”
Why?
Because we have developed a strange social hierarchy where the person with greater economic, institutional or social power is automatically treated as more credible.
The customer has money.
The company has a platform.
The manager has authority.
The elder has age.
The influential person has connections.
And the ordinary individual?
He has to prove that he deserves to be heard.
That is the real problem.
We Don't Believe in Investigation — We Believe in Immediate Judgment
A sensible system should work differently.
Complaint received.
Evidence collected.
Both sides heard.
Relevant records reviewed.
Timeline established.
Responsibility determined.
Action taken.
Simple.
But this requires effort.
Judgment is much easier.
Someone complains?
Take action.
Someone denies it?
“Why are you making excuses?”
Someone provides an alternative explanation?
“He is trying to escape responsibility.”
And before anyone has properly investigated the matter, the accused person is already carrying the burden of proving his innocence.
This creates a dangerous culture.
Because once the accusation becomes the conclusion, investigation becomes nothing more than paperwork.
The “Megalomaniac” Culture
This is where I use the word megalomaniac deliberately—not as a clinical diagnosis, but to describe a social attitude.
The attitude that says:
“Because I am the customer, you cannot question me.”
Or:
“Because I have authority, you must accept my version.”
Or:
“Because I complained first, my story automatically carries more weight.”
That attitude is poisonous.
It doesn't create respect.
It creates fear.
And there is a major difference between respect and fear.
A healthy society allows people to question one another.
A dysfunctional society teaches weaker people to remain silent.
“Customer Is Always Right” Needs a Correction
Perhaps the better principle should be:
The customer deserves to be heard.
The worker deserves to be heard.
The company deserves to investigate.
And facts deserve to matter.
That is much healthier.
The customer should not be ignored.
But neither should the rider.
A rider's mistake should not automatically become misconduct.
A complaint should not automatically become proof.
And an allegation should not automatically become a character verdict.
Otherwise, we are not protecting customers.
We are simply giving one side a socially acceptable license to dominate the other.
Why I Had to Write This
I could have simply moved on.
It was one ride.
One incident.
One complaint.
But the underlying attitude is much bigger than that.
I have spent years working in environments where documentation, approvals, procedures and accountability matter. I have learned that when something goes wrong, the first question should not be:
“Whom can we blame?”
It should be:
“What actually happened?”
That distinction matters.
Because people make mistakes.
I make mistakes.
You make mistakes.
Companies make mistakes.
Customers make mistakes.
Drivers make mistakes.
The difference between a functioning society and a dysfunctional one is not whether people make mistakes.
It is how society responds when something goes wrong.
Do we investigate?
Or do we simply find the weaker person and blame him?
I Will Accept My Mistakes
I have no problem saying:
I made a mistake.
I don't have a problem accepting responsibility where responsibility genuinely belongs to me.
What I do have a problem with is accepting a label that I believe is not supported by the facts.
There is a difference between accountability and surrender.
Accountability says:
“This part was my fault.”
Surrender says:
“Whatever you say about me must be true because you have more power than me.”
I refuse the second.
Not because I believe I am always right.
But because being willing to admit your mistake should never require you to accept someone else's unsupported accusation.
The Bigger Lesson
Maybe this particular incident will disappear tomorrow.
Another complaint will replace it.
Another customer will argue with another worker.
Another employee will be blamed.
Another rider will be told to explain himself.
But unless we change the mindset behind these situations, the cycle will continue.
We need to stop teaching people that the loudest person is right.
We need to stop treating money as credibility.
We need to stop treating authority as evidence.
We need to stop confusing a complaint with a verdict.
And above all, we need to stop believing that fairness means automatically siding with whichever party society considers more important.
The customer deserves respect.
The worker deserves respect.
The company deserves due process.
And above all:
The truth deserves an investigation.
That is not anti-customer.
That is simply pro-fairness.
And yes—
I had to do it.
0 Comments