The agriculture sector in the country faces several drawbacks. Wastage due to spoilage, large number of middlemen, bad condition of vegetable mandis, etc lead to an overall bad impression of the agriculture sector in the country. For the end-users, there is no easy to get re-assurance that they are getting good quality foods and vegetables; that their local vendor is not fleecing them (even a Re 1 markup over a sustained period of time can be a pretty large figure in the overall family’s budget, and especially for poor families). What is required for a lot more investment and improvement in the agricultural sector. Large retailers with their incorporation of direct contacts with farmers, providing tips and techniques for better cultivation, more cold storage for reducing spoilage is one way. Another measure that needs to be taken is the improvement of traditional vegetable markets in the country, with better information flow, more facilities, essentially measures that will help improve the lot of farmers as well as end-consumers. It seems like a measure is being taken in Ludhiana in Punjab in this regard, which is a great move:

After industry now it’s the turn of agriculture to record major advances in this ‘Manchester of India’. The construction of Punjab’s first ‘model vegetable market’ in the city spread over 55 acres has reached the final stages and will be completed at an investment of about Rs 70 crore. The first ‘model market’ will have 5 cold stores with 50 mt capacity.
To purify vegetables and fruits two machines with the latest technology will be installed in the market and 50 electronic boards displaying rates of major vegetable markets in the country will also be set up. “A whopping sum of Rs 70 crore would be invested on the modernisation of the Ludhiana vegetable market alone, while in rest of the state we will invest Rs 260 crore on revamping 124 markets.

This is a great move, and should help everybody. Agriculture is still the primary livelihood for a sizable section of the population of this country, as well as being a big part of the budget for poor families.

In India, overcrowded means of transport are the norm. You look at buses / trucks / jeeps / taxis, all of them seem to be over-crowded and full of passengers. In the case of an accident, the insurance company is inundated with cases filed by the passengers. So now there is a clarification about the limits to how much the insurance claims can be filed:

Insurance companies cannot be compelled to pay compensation to all passengers in road accidents involving overloaded vehicles of public transport as the liability is restricted only to authorised number of passengers, the Supreme Court has ruled. In other words, if a 42-seater bus overloaded with 90 passengers meets with an accident, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of the authorised 42 passengers.
The apex court passed the ruling while setting aside the orders passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal which had directed the National Insurance Company to compensate all the 90 passengers of a 42-seater bus involved in an accident.

This is an interesting judgment, and could affect people who get impacted by accidents. Typically, in most urban and rural areas, public transport is over-loaded. In the case of accidents, people would no longer have the safety of at least having insurance. However, this is correct from the perspective of an insurance company since the insurance on the vehicle and costing is as per the carrying capacity of the vehicle.

People consuming cigarettes and liquor have been used to the concept of paying more, and being used as a tax source by the Government when it needs additional revenue. However, to pay even more even when the excise rate has been reduced is a bit too much. Being a part of the WTO, and enjoying benefits under the global trading framework, the Indian Government had to balance its excessively high duties by cutting the additional 150% customs duty that it used to levy (over and above the basic customs duty of 150%). However, the Delhi Government, unable to decide a new rate, continued to charge buyers this rate even though the duty no longer existed:

For those in the Capital who can’t do without their regular fix of imported liquor, here’s some shocking news. For the past one-and-a-half months, people buying foreign liquor brands have been paying 150% additional customs duty - a duty that does not exist any more.
On July 3, the Union government withdrew the 150% additional customs duty on foreign liquor as part of its commitments to the World Trade Organisation. In lieu of the central duty, states are now free to levy a new duty on imported liquor. But the Delhi government hasn’t yet set a new duty structure on foreign liquor for fear that if the duty is higher than that set by neighbouring states, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, it may encourage bootlegging and cause revenue loss. Companies, in the interim, continue to charge the additional duty on foreign liquor — in full knowledge of the state excise department. They now say, with some ‘clarity’ coming in about the policy, they are finally ready to pass on the benefit to the consumer.

This seems grossly wrong. There is no duty component any more, and yet the customers are being charged a higher price. If this was being done by a private company, the Government would have threatened the company with price gouging, with incorrect pricing, and who knows what else. But, since the price is set by the Government, there is no discussion, no worry about excessive price, and so on. And, of course, there is no such thing in Government such as being proactive about a decision, given that this information was known for some time and the Government / bureaucracy has enough people to be able to take a decision on this in time.

Shocking, isn’t it. Kids go to a fair to enjoy and have a good time, and due to non-regular maintenance, the ride simply collapses on the kids. Not only did this cause injuries to the kids and some adults, it would have shocking; at least for a couple of the kids, it will make it much more difficult for them to go to another fair and have the same amount of excitement for a Ferris Wheel again. The biggest issue is that there does not seem to be any kind of checks and balances for a fair like this, once the fair holders have permission to hold a fair, there is no check whatsoever about whether the machines are okay, have proper maintenance, and so on:

They were there for sheer fun, but a ride on the Ferris wheel turned out to be a traumatic experience for about 12 children and at least three adults, who suffered minor injuries when most of the wheel simply collapsed while in motion.
Although the organisers had the requisite permission to conduct the fair, they had not taken adequate precautions which led to the accident. Sources said the arms of the wheel came loose while in motion. “This could have happened as the nuts keeping the arms attached to the main body came loose,” an eye-witness remarked.

In can be argued that this was simply an accident, but that is not a correct argument. It is only when we are in a relaxed environment, unworried about things such as inspections of facilities, that people can take short-cuts, and either get shoddy maintenance done or no maintenance at all. There is no worry that they can be fined or otherwise held responsible for their doings. Another example is when you go to a ill-maintained building, then there is a fear that lifts in the building have not had proper maintenance, and we have all learned to live with such fears rather than trying to do something about it.

If you feel that the fees and fines you play on your credit card is very high, then you are not alone. Given that this is a wide-spread complaint, the Reserve Bank of India instructed credit card companies to make all their charges, fines and feed clear to consumers, in a manner that can be easily understood. However, given that the credit card companies charge a very high rate of interest, it seems pretty natural that they are not so eager to do that; and this is true not only for the charges, but also for a whole host of other measures that the RBI has instructed credit card companies / banks to do over a period of time:

Ever wondered how long it would take to clear the Rs 50,000 outstanding on your credit card? Probably, no one, other than your credit card company, knows the answer. It’s a different matter that the credit card issuer — despite being told by the Reserve Bank of India as recently as last month — is unwilling to disclose the information, leading to many card holders falling in a debt trap due to high interest rates, which range between 20% and 42%.
But that’s not the only norm that is being flouted by most banks and non-banking finance companies issuing credit cards. Even the annualised interest rate is to be communicated clearly to card holders but it is usually buried in the small print on the reverse side of your monthly bill. But banks blame cardholders for not reading the bill carefully.
RBI guidelines, issued on July 2, has also mandated that banks illustrate in the monthly statement how they levy interest rates. But there are very few credit card issuers who follow the norms. In any case most banks illustrate the minimum amount due more prominently than the total outstanding, leaving credit cardholders to hunt for the latter number. This is despite the fact that the RBI guidelines stipulate that the statement must clearly warn the customer of the long-term consequences of paying only the minimum amount due.

Credit cards are a measure of convenience, but people must realize that this is a convenience that can turn into a trap. Credit cards free a person from the problem of carrying a large amount of cash at all points of time, but there are several other problems. A person could forget to pay the amount payable, or to buy just because a credit card is available and not worry about repayment. In such cases, the interest rates are very high, and it is necessary for the card holder to have full knowledge about the annualized rate that gets charged, if only to scare the person into paying in full.