This is an open letter to Mr Asheem Man Singh Basnyat, Managing Director of Pathao and an independent candidate contesting from Kathmandu-1 in the upcoming House of Representatives Election.
I am writing this as an open letter because my attempts to resolve a straightforward matter through your company’s channels have failed.
At the outset, let me make four things clear: I do not know you personally. I have no affiliation with any political party. I am not a voter in the constituency you are seeking an election, and I do not write to undermine your standing in the ongoing election. My sole objective is accountability, justice, and the principle that the rule of law must be practised, not merely spoken about.
This letter concerns an incident involving a rider operating through your ride-sharing and delivery platform, Pathao and the manner in which your company has handled its aftermath.
The incident and Pathao’s initial position
On 25 December, a rider using your app, while delivering a parcel, struck my car and caused significant damage. I reported the incident to the local police station in accordance with the law and common sense. The discussion that followed involved the rider, me, and the representatives of your company in the presence of the police.
At that time, your team, through words and conduct, clearly conveyed that Pathao would bear the repair costs, since the rider was at fault operating through your platform. Based on that understanding, I took my car for repair, expecting your company to settle the costs.
Subsequently, Pathao took a different position. I was informed that the rider’s third-party insurance had expired, and that I should therefore claim the costs from my own insurance.
I declined.
I declined for a simple reason: Pathao publicly promotes itself as a platform that offers insurance coverage and enhanced safety. These claims create a reasonable expectation among the public and road users that riders operating through your app are insured, compliant, and properly monitored.
If Pathao cannot ensure that riders remain insured, or cannot suspend riders who fail to meet the platform’s requirements, then what, in practical terms, do these assurances amount to?
It cannot be acceptable for the platform to benefit from public trust created by its branding and advertising, but shift the burden onto innocent parties when harm occurs. That is not just unfair; it is precisely what consumer protection laws are meant to prevent.
Why “our contract with the rider” is not a sufficient excuse
Your legal team has engaged with me in multiple discussions. The company’s core position appears to be: “Pathao has a contract with the rider; the rider failed to maintain insurance; therefore, responsibility lies with the rider.”
That argument may be convenient, but it is neither ethically defensible nor legally acceptable.
Under Nepal’s consumer protection perspective, a business cannot rely on its internal contractual terms when a company publicly claims that its platform is insured or “protected,” that claim is not merely a marketing ploy; it is a representation that influences public behaviour and trust.
When such representations are relied upon, the company has a duty to ensure its systems match its promises.
If it is accurate that the rider’s third-party insurance had expired while operating on the platform, then the failure is not only the rider’s. It is also a failure of oversight, enforcement and governance within the platform itself.
My efforts to resolve this fairly in private
I did not rush to the media.
I engaged with your team in multiple discussions and settled the matter fairly and quietly. When the discussions failed, I wrote to you directly. You did not respond, but asked another team member to contact me. He totally agreed with my position and said he would revert after internal discussions. I never received a follow-up. When I later inquired, he informed me that he was on leave.
Since then, there has been no meaningful resolution. My car remained at the maintenance centre for more than a month, and I remained in limbo.
What I find truly astounding is that I shared the draft of this open letter with you privately through your LinkedIn profile, followed up by a text message to ensure you were aware, the message was seen, and I waited a full week for your response so this would not have to be made public. Yet your silence has been absolute, and in that silence there is a message of its own. Silence is never neutral. It can be a choice, a posture, a way of avoiding accountability while hoping time will dull the matter into irrelevance.
In Nepal, we have seen too many attempts to silence people through delay, indifference, and avoidance. This tactic will not work anymore.
That silence is why I am writing a public letter. Not because I enjoy confrontation, but because silence, in such circumstances, becomes a form of power: the power to delay, exhaust, and outlast an ordinary citizen until they give up.
But I do not have the luxury of giving up.
The election and the question of credibility
You are contesting an upcoming parliamentary election. With respect, that makes this issue more, not less, important.
Leadership is not proven by slogans or speeches. It is proven by how institutions respond when harm occurs and when citizens seek a remedy.
When someone asks the public to entrust them with political power and legislative authority, the public has a legitimate right to ask: how do they practice accountability in the organisation they already lead?
If accountability is absent within one’s own institution, why should people believe it will exist in the institutions of the state?
Rule of law starts where we stand
In Nepal, we often talk about the state failing to deliver timely justice and a system that protects the powerful at the expense of ordinary citizens. While standing for the election, you have publicly committed to this reality.
But what happened in my case has shaken my confidence in that promise. If the institution you lead profits from public trust every day but cannot guarantee basic standards of care and accountability, then how can the public trust its leader, that is, you, to uphold those same standards in public office?
Accountability does not begin with abstract calls for reform. It begins with our own offices, our companies, our platforms, our leadership choices, and our willingness to remedy harm caused under our watch.
A society becomes lawful not when leaders speak about law but when they practice fairness, accept responsibility, and hold themselves to standards that are higher than the minimum they can legally evade.
What I am asking for
I am not asking for charity. I am asking for a fair and lawful resolution.
- A clear written explanation from Pathao addressing why a rider operating through its platform was allowed to work with expired third-party insurance, if that is indeed the case.
- A remedy for the damage to my vehicle, consistent with the understanding created at the police station and the implied commitment made by your team that the company would bear the costs.
- A public clarification of Pathao’s insurance claims, so the public is not misled and road users are not left unprotected when accidents occur.
If Pathao’s advertising creates an expectation of coverage, the company should honour that expectation and prevent this from happening again.
In the end
I repeat: this letter is not a personal attack, nor an attempt to influence voters against you. It is a call for accountability in practice.
I write because ordinary citizens should not be forced to absorb the cost of harm caused under a powerful institution’s banner simply because it is easier to deflect responsibility than to correct the failure.
If you aspire to public office, this is an opportunity to demonstrate what kind of leader you are: one who avoids responsibility when it becomes inconvenient, or one who understands that leadership includes remedying harm caused under one’s watch.
The public deserves platforms that do not hide behind technicalities, and leaders who understand that accountability is not something we demand from others. It is something we practice ourselves.
