What is TRAI?

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is an independent regulatory organisation tasked with overseeing India's telecommunications industry. It was formed under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is responsible for overseeing the orderly expansion of the telecom sector while safeguarding the interests of both telecom service providers and customers. It promotes technology advancements and offers suggestions on how providers can increase their efficiency and technical compatibility. To that purpose, the TRAI creates quality of service (QoS) standards and monitors how service providers split money. Periodic surveys are also conducted by TRAI to ensure that telecom service providers are working for the benefit of their customers and complying with universal service obligations.

The majority of consumer complaints against a telecom company with the Consumer Court in India concern poor telecom services. Legal measures have been implemented by administrative entities such as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to settle these concerns as quickly as practicable.

We can make a consumer complaint against a telecom Company for such poor facility status under the Indian Government's Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations, 2007. For the following grounds, we might file a complaint against the Telecom Service Provider. In this post, we'll look at the options available to us in the event of a telecom service provider's lack of efficiency.

CASE STUDY:

Ajay Kumar Agarwal vs. Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) 

Held That : A customer may choose to pursue the remedy of arbitration, but there is no legal requirement to do so, and a consumer may instead seek recourse to the remedies given under The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled on Vodafone's appeal, in which the company challenged the NCDRC's (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) order, which upheld the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's conclusion that Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885 does not apply to a private sector service provider because it is not a Telegraph Authority.

The Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: On May 25, 2014, Ajay Kumar Agarwal filed a consumer complaint against a telecom company with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Ahmedabad, alleging a deficit in service by Vodafone.

Mr. Agarwal used to have a post-paid mobile connection and was paying Rs. 249 a month in basic rent, according to the complaint, and Vodafone was providing mobile telecom services to him, implying that a consumer-provider relationship existed. Mr. Agrawal had signed up for a "auto pay" scheme using a credit card given by his bank, under which Vodafone would receive money before the due date, allowing him to pay his payments on time.

He claimed that the normal monthly bill was about 555, but that the respondent was billed for Rs 24,609.51 between November 8, 2013 and December 7, 2013. Mr. Agrawal claimed Vodafone overcharged him and filed a consumer complaint with the district consumer forum, demanding Rs 22,000 in damages, plus interest and other reliefs. 

Verdict by Supreme Court of India:

According to a bench of Justices-SC Bench, the remedy of arbitration under the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 is of a statutory nature and would not obviate the consumer forum's jurisdiction in such issues.

“It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the (Consumer Protection) Act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019,” as said by the bench.

The top court ruled on a Vodafone appeal in which the company challenged an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in which it affirmed the SCDRC's conclusion that Section 7B of the Act of 1885 does not apply to a private service provider because it is not a "Telegraph Authority." The court recently stated that the addition of the term "telecom services" to the definition in Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 cannot be interpreted to suggest that telecom services were excluded from the consumer forum's jurisdiction under the previous Act of 1986.

“On the contrary, the definition of the expression ‘service’ in Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was wide enough to comprehend services of every description including telecom services,” the bench said.

Conclusion

The Apex Court's decision is significant because it would limit and bring telecom providers' services within the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. A subscriber who uses telecoms businesses' services is regarded a " Consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Act,2019, and Telecom Services are considered " Service" under the Act's definition of Service. The Supreme Court went on to say that a consumer or telecom service user has two options: proceed to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, or register a complaint with consumer forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

To file a consumer complaint against a telecom company you can contact Online Legal India, we can help you out in filing your complaint and it will become a hassle free procedure for you.