Have you considered objections: High Court to TRAI on call drops

The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) if it had considered the objections raised by the cellular service providers to its new regulation asking them to pay compensation for call drops experienced on their networks.

A Division Bench said during the hearing on a writ petition moved by the Cellular Operators Association of India and others challenging the new rule that if it was set aside in future, the telecom operators forced to compensate the consumers would not be able to recover the money.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath, however, agreed with the TRAI's contention that the regulator had the power to frame the rule. The October 16, 2015 regulation mandates cellular service operators to pay consumers Re.1 per call drop experienced on their networks, subject to a cap of Rs.3 a day.

Additional Solicitor-General P.S. Narasimha, appearing for TRAI, said during the hearing that prior to framing of the new rule, a technical consultation paper was sent to all stakeholders, including telecom firms, on the call drops issue and their representations were considered.

Mr. Narasimha said the telecom operators were not compensating the consumers for call drops by taking advantage of TRAI's undertaking in the court that it would not take coercive steps against them.

Petitioners' counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi said two per cent of call drops were exempted under the quality of service regulations, which were to be followed as part of the licence conditions. He said the cellular service providers would incur heavy losses if they were forced to pay compensation for call drops, which could occur for no fault in their service.

On the other hand, TRAI had in an affidavit filed in the court on Wednesday held the lack of investment by cellular service providers in the network infrastructure, including mobile towers, responsible for the problem of call drops.

It said the investment had not kept pace with the increase in usage and the number of subscribers.

The Bench posted the case for further hearing on January 11 after hearing arguments from both the sides for over two hours.