Best Tranfer the service

Best Service

Best Service OurCompany

India’s finest transport company with more than 30 years experience in International and Domestic Moving Service, we offer high quality storage services. We are backed by a dedicated team of customer oriented office staff, trained & experienced moving team, offices across the country, self-owned warehouses and fleet of vehicles. The operation has been built around understanding the client's requirements and offering a full logistics package delivered by knowledgeable staff. We offer great quality services at competitive prices. All managed by experienced location logistics personnel. Choose us and you can be assured of the very best quality of services. Whether you are moving locally, nationally or overseas, choosing  is the best move you could make.To be a dependable feature in our customers business and an extension to their shipping department is what keeps our business moving forward.

Government Official Responses
The study team of CEG-IIMA team interacted with the former transport commissioner (who
conceived and executed the CICP project) and other RTO officials to get their perceptions about
the computerized interstate check posts. The following sections give an analysis of the data
collected.
3.3.1 Transport Commissioner
When the transport commissioner took over his position in 1998, on a random observation of the
check post operations recognized the need for improvement in the estimation and collection
systems at the check posts in order to plug leakage of government revenues.
To start with, the commissioner introduced the Pre-paid Card System in 1998, allowing a
transporter to voluntarily pay Rs. 1200 per month for overloading. This scheme allowed the
vehicle to overload up to 20% of the permissible weight. This scheme proved to be quite popular
and revenues jumped by 82% in that year (from Rs. 31 crores to 56 crores – see the table below).

Providing Adequate Cash to Drivers
92% of drivers have perceived no difference in the attitude of transporters in terms of equipping
them with adequate cash. 2% perceive deterioration with an average deterioration of 1.0. 6% of
drivers perceive an average improvement of 2.17. The average score for the CICP works out to
3.53, which is less than 4.00 of the control group. This is possibly due to minimum cash
requirement at the non-computerized check post (due to gold card system

bypassing the
system.
iii. Transparency
56% of drivers perceive no difference in the transparency levels of both the old and new system.
10% perceive a decline of 1.50, while 34% of drivers have noticed an average improvement by
3.2. The overall positive impact is 0.93. The control group score is 3.33, which is a bit higher
than the CICP score of 3.44. Thus the drivers perceive the computerized check post to be
somewhat more transparent in its processes.
3.2.2 Check Post Amenities
The drivers were asked to score their perceptions on the amenities at the check post (presented in
the questionnaire) on a 1 to 5 scale. The drivers have responded to the questions related to only
two amenities namely waiting lanes and parking facilities. The following table summarizes the
analysis of observations and the sections below present an analysis of the results of each
amenity.
Amenities at the Check Posts
Perceptions Waiting Parking
Number of Respondents 83 83
Average SL: Before CICP 1.66 1.66
% perceiving deterioration 4% 0
Average SL: deterioration (1.67) -
% perceiving no difference 23% 8%
% perceiving improvement 73% 92%
Page 16 of 42
Average SL: Improvement 2.92 2.86
Average SL after CICP 3.94 4.33
Overall Impact 2.08 2.61
Control group Respondents 16 16
Average SL : control group 1.31 1.31
a. Waiting Lanes
73% of drivers find the convenience of having a well laid out waiting lane quite significant, a
score of 2.92 out of 5. Hence, the overall average positive shift works out to 2.08, with 23%
finding no difference and with only 4% of the 83 responses being negative. The respondents of
the control group perceive this amenity as not satisfactory, giving an average score of 1.31. Thus
this amenity is significantly enhanced both after computerization and in comparison with the
control group.
b. Parking Space
92% of drivers are satisfied and perceive a major shift in the parking amenities. Only 8% opine
that there is no change and there are no negative answers. Hence this factor has the highest
positive shift of 2.61, and can be clearly considered a significant by-product of CICP, providing
a much-needed amenity to the weary driver. Control group respondents are not satisfied with the
parking amenity and the average score works out to 1.31.
3.2.3 Inspector Behavior
Drivers were asked to score their perceptions on the RTO inspector’s behavior (politeness,
fairness and efficiency) at the check post on a 1 to 5 scale. The following table summarizes the
analysis of observations. Sections below present an analysis of the results.
Attitude of Inspectors
Perceptions Politeness Efficiency Fairness
Number of Respondents 106 106 99
Average score before CICP 2.14 2.29 2.34
% perceiving deterioration 5% 8% 6%
Average deterioration (1.60) (1.88) (1.17)
% perceiving no difference 82% 67% 77%
% perceiving improvement 13% 25% 17%
Average Improvement 2.14 2.41 2.88
Average score after CICP 2.44 2.84 2.89
Overall Impact 0.21 0.47 0.42
Control group Respondents 11 10 11
Average score for control group 3.09 2.70 2.64
a. Politeness
82% of drivers perceive no change in the behavior of inspectors. The status quo is maintained.
5% of drivers perceive deterioration in this parameter and 13% find an improvement amounting
to an average of 2.14. The overall impact is marginally positive (0.21). The average score for the
control group is 3.09 and that for CICP is 2.44. Thus, respondents at the non-computerized
check post find the inspectors more polite, although there is a small improvement at CICP, pre
and post computerization.
b. Efficiency
Page 17 of 42
67% of drivers have opined that there is no significant change in efficiency levels of Inspectors.
25% of the respondents have stated some improvement (average score of 2.84), which leads to
an overall positive shift of 0.47. The control group perceives that the inspectors at the noncomputerized
check post are marginally less efficient, with an average score of 2.7 as against the
CICP score of 2.84. Thus, CICP has slightly enhanced the efficiency levels of inspectors.
c. Fairness
77% drivers perceive no change in the inspectors, with respect to fairness in dealings. 17% have
perceived improvement of 2.88, which reads into an overall positive shift of 0.42. The average
score for the control group is 2.64 and that of CICP is 2.89. Thus the inspectors at CICP are
perceived to be more fair and transparent, both in comparison to before computerization and
with a non-computerized check post.
3.2.4 Transporter Preparedness
The drivers were asked to score their perceptions of transporters on a 1 to 5 scale. The difference
in the score of each parameter (overloading, documentation, tax compliance, license plate
compliance, providing adequate cash) after computerization and before computerization is
computed for each respondent. A positive value of such difference conveys an improvement and
the negative value conveys deterioration / dissatisfaction on the attitude parameter with reference
to the respondent. These values are averaged over all the respondents to obtain the overall
impact of computerization on the attitudes of the transporters. The following table summarizes
the analysis of observations. Sections below present an analysis of the results of each attitude
parameter.
Transporter Preparedness
Perceptions Overloading Documentation Road Tax
Payments
License
Plate
Adequate
Money
Number of Respondents 106 96 97 92 100
Average score before CICP 2.79 3.16 3.46 3.45 3.49
% perceiving deterioration 7% 1% 0% 0% 2%
Average deterioration (2.00) (2.00) - - (1.00)
% perceiving no difference 71% 91% 99% 99% 92%
% perceiving improvement 23% 8% 1% 1% 6%
Average Improvement 2.22 2.75 4.00 1.00 2.17
Average score after CICP 3.09 3.35 3.48 3.43 3.53
Overall Impact 0.33 0.21 0.04 0.01 0.11
Control group Respondents 8 8 8 8 8
Average score for control group 3.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
a. Overloading
71% of the drivers perceive that there is no change in the pattern or routine of overloading by
transporters, post-computerization. 23% of drivers perceive some improvement and only 7%
perceive deterioration (by a score of 2.00). Overall shift is positive at 0.33. The average score for
the control group is 3.25, higher than the CICP score of 3.09. Thus the attitude of transporters
towards overloading post computerization has improved marginally. An improvement here
signifies that transporters are more careful now and do not overload their vehicles
indiscriminately. The presence of accurate weighing mechanisms at the check post has made
them more cautious. However, at the non-computerized check post transporters are perceived as
more careful in overloading of goods.
Page 18 of 42
b. Documentation
91% of respondents perceive no difference in the documentation provided by transporters to
them. 8% have perceived an average improvement of 2.75, with an overall positive shift of 0.21.
The average score for the control group works out to 4 which is far higher than 3.35 of CICP.
This is possibly due to simple document checking procedures at non-computerized check post as
the drivers carry Gold Cards, and Inspectors know they would only be provided the cards if their
documents were in order and up-to-date.
c. Road Tax Payments
99% of drivers perceive no difference in payment compliance of road taxes after
computerization. The average score for the CICP works out to 3.48, which is less than 4.00 of
the control group. This is again possibly due to simple document checking procedures at noncomputerized
check post.
d. License Plate Standard Compliance
99% of drivers have perceived no difference in the attitude of transporters towards compliance to
license plate norms. None of the respondents have found any deterioration in the new system
either. The average score for the CICP works out to 3.43, which is less than 4.00 of the control
group. This is also possibly due to simple checking procedures at non-computerized check post.
The computerized check posts insist on standardization as they are expected to capture the
license plate information through video cameras.

Unaccounted Collections
61% of drivers have responded that payment of 'additional' money to RTO staff continues to be
the same, post CICP. 14% have responded that they have to pay more money now giving an
average decline of 2.17, while 25% opine that CICP has resulted in an improvement by giving a
positive impact of 2.81. Overall, there is a positive shift of 0.39 in this dimension of processing
at the check post. The control group average works out to 3.33, which is slightly better than the
CICP average of 3.25. Possibly the drivers in the control group may be paying lesser additional
money, as compared to drivers passing through CICP – in the absence of accurate estimation of
weight of the trucks and other control procedures.
Almost all the drivers interviewed told the study team that an unofficial 'entry fee' of Rs. 20 to
Rs. 50 has to be paid by them irrespective of the weight of the goods being carried by them.
Once the Inspector does the weighing and penalty estimation process, the driver is given an
option to pay the 'official' or 'unofficial' sum of money (the former goes to the Government
treasuries and the latter gets unaccounted).
The table below summarizes the pattern of penalty collections at the surveyed computerized
check posts:
Penalty Amounts paid Given Receipt Unaccounted Collection
by drivers


N = 106
Over
Weight
Over
Dimension
Along with
OD or OW
penalties
In lieu of
OW or
OD

penalties
No. of Vehicles 54 (50%) 12 (11%) 15 (14%) 36 (33%)
Total Amount (Rs.) 61995 16225 570 4100
Average per vehicle (Rs) 1148 1352 38 114
It can be seen from the table that about 50% of the vehicles paid penalty for overloading and
11% of the vehicles paid penalty for over dimensioning. The average penalty per vehicle for
overloading is Rs.1148 and for over dimensioning is Rs.1352.
However, 33% of the vehicles although are either overloaded or over dimensioned, were not
charged official penalty and were let off by collecting an average of Rs.114 per vehicle, which
went unaccounted. Thus creating a clear leakage of government revenue to the extent of
Rs.1250*36 = 45,000 with a corruption amount of Rs.4, 100.
In addition to the above, unaccounted money of Rs.38 per vehicle was collected from 14% of the
vehicles, which were given official receipts for either overloading or over dimensioning. Thus
even with CICP, unaccounted money was collected from 47% of the vehicles passing through
the check post.
An interesting facet, on the use of the weigh- bridge, came into light, during the study. In the
traditional system, weighing was not an exact procedure, due to non-availability of weighbridges
at the check post. The inspectors used to stop only some suspect vehicles and estimate
the overload weight visually and by experience and collect penalty charges from them.
Page 15 of 42
With the introduction of the weighbridge, the exact weight is known for all vehicles. Neither
there is a locking mechanism (where once a vehicle gets weighed through the electronic weighbridge,
the system logs the transaction and does not permit non-payments for over loading)
existing nor is the monitoring mechanism in place. Thus, CICP has offered a greater opportunity
for 'leakage'. Inspectors now randomly bypass the system and collect a smaller 'unofficial'
amount in lieu of the large official penalty charges. Unwittingly, technology has become a useful
and perfect tool in the hands of the corrupt.
Possibly, introduction of suitable locking mechanisms and elimination of cash collection (by
using electronic means of payment like debit cards, etc.) at check posts may improve the
situation.
70% of the drivers complained that Inspectors habitually harass them (in spite of paying the due
amounts), sometimes even going to the extent of manhandling them.