Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on Friday revealed recommendations on consumer complaints in the Indian telecom sector.
TRAI has submitted the recommendations to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) despite all telecom operators’ demand for no change in current telecom regulations.
The above chart prepared by TRAI indicates that India’s mobile phone users are facing huge difficulties in ensuring the quality of their services. The quality of service reflects the number of complaints from mobile phone users.
The TRAI chart showed the number of complaints received by telecom operators such as Airtel, Aircel, BSNL, MTNL, Idea Cellular, Telenor, Reliance Communications, Vodafone, Tata Docomo, etc. TRAI is upset about the lack of focus in solving consumer complaints.
TRAI noted that there is a need for the creation of an independent and appropriately empowered structure for resolution of grievances of telecom consumers. India has more than 100 billion mobile subscribers.
“There should be an Office of Telecom Ombudsman to solve consumer complaints,” said TRAI in its recommendations.
ALSO READ: TRAI note on telecom operator complaints
The ombudsman can be established under rules framed by the Central Government, similar to the institution of the insurance ombudsman under the Redress of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 (RPG Rules). These Rules were framed by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 114 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Section 35(1) of the TRAI Act contains a similar provision, which states that The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
Alternatively, the Government can choose to create the ombudsman office through a legislation to be passed by the Parliament.
There should be a three stage grievance redressal mechanism for telecom sector
# Resolution by TSPs
# Resolution by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum [CGRF]
# Determination by Telecom Ombudsman
The telecom consumer should in the first instance approach the complaint center of the TSP to seek a solution. It will be the duty of the TSP to look into the request and address the consumer’s concerns within the time frames stipulated by the Authority.
In case the TSP fails to resolve the complaint in a manner that is satisfactory to the consumer; or does not provide a response; or fails to do so within the prescribed time lines laid down by TRAI, the customer will have the option to seek further redress through an independent mechanism. This will consist of a process of a resolution based on fact 20 finding by CGRF, followed by, if necessitated, determination by the telecom ombudsman.
CGRFs are proposed at LSA/State level by leveraging existing field formations of DoT like PG Cells, TERM Cells etc. that already has a reasonable presence across the country. The CGRF will be primarily responsible for settling the facts, facilitating mediation and will also offer a solution if the parties themselves cannot arrive at a settlement.
Depending on the complexity, facts and circumstances of any particular case, CGRF may choose to seek assistance or guidance from other groups or institutions or independent experts who are well placed to represent consumer interests.
TRAI said this may include CAGs empanelled by TRAI, Central/State Government Departments, legal aid centers, national and state consumer helpline centers, premier institutes in the field of law like National School of Law, and various other bodies that may be identified by the Central or the State Governments for this purpose.
If not satisfied with the process at the level of CGRF, the telecom consumer may choose to proceed for determination by the Ombudsman. Ombudsman will be required to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It will have the power to award compensation to the consumer, award costs and issue directions to the TSP for the performance of specific obligations.
The decision of the Ombudsman will be final and binding on the parties. In order to function as an effective Body, Authority also recommends that, the ombudsman should have the power to levy penalties on the TSPs.
Only such complaints that relate to clearly identifiable and measurable rights vested with the individual subscriber flowing out of the contract of service with the TSP, Rules/Regulations/Requirements laid down by the Authority or the Licensor, which have a bearing on the relationship between the TSP and the individual consumer may qualify.
When a complaint is forwarded by a consumer to CGRF, it will first undertake a preliminary screening process to assess whether the complaint is of a nature that qualifies for mediation and determination by CGRF or ombudsman, within the framework of the grievance redress rules laid down by the Government.
The ombudsman will have offices at national levels and sub-national levels covering each State. 21 It should be technology-driven solution that can provide redress remotely to consumers using their phones, Internet etc. Consumers should be able to access local facilitation centers to register their complaints, from where the information would be fed into a centralized database.
TSPs will be required to maintain video calling facilities at their local offices, which can be used by the consumer to interact with the CGRF or Ombudsman’s office, in case it is required. The centralized web based system will allow flow of information from each level of the grievance redressal mechanism to the Ombudsman, thereby obviating the need for the same information to be provided again at various stages.
A portion of the existing, not in addition, license fee, is recommended as the funding mechanism for the CGRF and Ombudsman. In addition to this fixed fee there will be a variable component payable by each TSP depending on the volume of complaints being filed against it and admitted before the ombudsman’s office.
