In case of any doubt regarding interpretation of any of the provisions of these regulations, the clarification by the Authority shall be final and binding.
Explanatory Memorandum
1. Consumer protection is one of the focus areas of TRAI. TRAI has taken several measures to protect the interest of consumers, facilitated availability of telecom services at affordable price and has ensured Quality of Service provided by telecom service providers. Notwithstanding this, consumers continue to have concerns. Given the large base of telecom consumers in the country, the number of complaints would be large even if the percentage of dissatisfied consumers is low.
2. Effective redressal of consumer complaints is therefore of prime importance. While the measures taken by TRAI so far have been, by and large effective, the effort in this regard is a continuous process and requires to be reviewed from time to time to improve the effectiveness of complaint redressal. In May 2007, TRAI had issued the Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations, 2007. These regulations provided a framework for redressal of consumer grievances through establishment of a three-tier redressal mechanism. However, TRAI has received representations from consumers and consumer organisations that the grievance redressal mechanism established by the service providers needs to be improved by making it more effective and also increasing the awareness among the consumers about the said mechanism.
3. In order to review the present framework relating to redressal of consumer grievances, TRAI had issued a Pre-Consultation Paper on Telecom consumer protection and redressal of consumer grievances on 11th May 2010 to seek the comments of the stakeholders. The feedback received from the stakeholders emphasised the need for effective redressal of consumer complaints by the telecom service providers at all levels including at the level of Nodal officer and the Appellate Authority. They also indicated that there is hardly any information regarding call charges especially to pre-paid subscribers. Their concern was that the response from the telecom service providers to the complaints is unsatisfactory.
4. In a meeting convened by TRAI with different telecom service providers and Consumer Advocacy Groups on 12th May 2010 at Delhi, there was a general consensus that the present consumer grievance redressal mechanism needs to be strengthened further. Surveys undertaken by TRAI through independent agencies also revealed that there was low awareness amongst consumers about the complaint redressal mechanism set up by the service providers and also that the customers were dissatisfied with the redressal measures being provided.
5. Based on the feedback received, the Authority issued a Consultation Paper on Review of Measures to Protect Interest of Consumers in the Telecom Sector on 2nd August, 2010. The consultation paper focused, inter alia, on the review of the Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations, 2007 and review of measures to protect the interest of consumers. Comments were received from various stakeholders and were uploaded on TRAI website. Open House Discussions were held at Jaipur on 14-12-2010, at Mumbai on 5-1-2011, at Chennai on 21-1-2011, at Lucknow on 11-3-2011 and at Kolkata on 16-3-2011.
6. Based on the comments received during public consultation and keeping in view the interests of telecom consumers and service providers, the Authority finalised the draft Telecom Consumers Complaint Redressal Regulations, 2011 which was published on TRAI website on 04th July, 2011, calling for comments. Comments were received from various stakeholders and these were also uploaded on TRAI website. The present Telecom Consumers Complaint Redressal Regulations are thus a result of an extensive consultation process.
7. The regulations provide for the establishment of a Complaint Centre with a toll free Consumer Care Number . During the consultation process, several stakeholders have raised the issue that for accessing their service provider for either booking a complaint or making a service request, they should be able to access the Complaint Centre through some other service provider. This is mainly required when there is disruption or disconnection of service. The regulations accordingly mandate the provision of an alternate number for the Consumer Care Number which can be accessed from any network.
8. In May 2010, the Authority had also issued detailed guidelines for setting up of a General Information Number for providing information to customers, to service providers. Accordingly, these regulations mandate the provision of a separate number at its Complaint Centre to be called as General Information Number .
9. Concerns have been expressed by customers about difficulty in navigating the IVRS menu at the Call Centre and that they are unable to speak to a customer care agent. Some of the service providers opposed the prescription of the format of the IVR menu and wanted TRAI to leave them free to implement as per their requirements. Since a sizeable segment of subscribers are from the rural areas and the low income group, it is necessary that the IVRS menu should have an option of the subscriber being able to speak to the customer care agent. Hence, a provision has been made in these regulations prescribing the manner in which the IVRS menu shall be managed including the provision for speaking to a customer care agent.
10. One of the issues highlighted during the consultation process relates to low awareness about the existing grievance redressal mechanism. To address this issue, it was proposed in the draft regulations that advertisement about the Complaint Centre and Appellate Authority may be published every six months in two newspapers and also such information should be given through website, telephone bills, vouchers, complaint centres, sales office and through pre-configuration or over the air transfer in the SIM. The draft regulations also proposed that whenever there is a change, a similar advertisement may be made. During the consultation process, there have been suggestions from service providers to keep the frequency for publication in the newspapers to twelve months on account of cost considerations. On the other hand the consumer organizations suggested the frequency to be three months. The Authority has considered both the arguments and has decided to retain the frequency of six months.
11. Several stakeholders including some consumer organizations have complained that though the present regulations have a provision for issue of docket number, the customer is not sure if his complaint has been registered and the time that is likely to be taken by the service provider for its resolution. Accordingly, it has been mandated in these regulations that every complaint shall be registered by giving a unique docket number, which should remain in the system for at least three months. The docket number along with date and time of registration and the time limit for resolution of the complaint would be communicated to the consumer. The customer shall also be informed of the action taken.
12. It was proposed in the draft regulations that the service providers should establish, within six months, a Web Based Complaint Monitoring System to enable the consumers to monitor the status of their complaints. During the consultation process, the Authority was informed that the CDMA based operators have implemented web based complaint system. There were also suggestions that other options (other than Web Based) such as SMS based Monitoring system could be established by the operators and would be more useful. The limitations with regard to SMS based system is that it has limited characters and hence customers may not get complete details. Further, in case of SMS based complaint monitoring system, it is difficult for third parties including TRAI to monitor such complaints. As such, web based system was found to be more suitable and technically feasible. The Authority held a meeting with the service providers in this regard when they agreed that it would be possible to implement this system within a short time. Accordingly, the regulations mandate the service providers to implement the web-based complaint system.
13. During the initial consultation process, many consumer organisations had opined that the system of Nodal Officer and Appellate Authority has not been effective and suggested replacing the same with an effective body for redressal of grievances of consumers, which will also have representatives from consumer organisations. The Authority kept in view the serious concerns expressed by consumers and consumer organisations about accessibility of the Nodal Officer and large number of complaints being received in TRAI about unsatisfactory resolution of complaints by the Call Centre. The Authority decided to make the three-tier mechanism into a two-tier one by doing away with the Nodal Officer. This is because the Complaint Centres are essentially registration and response centres and do not themselves deal with the resolution of complaints. They only facilitate registration of consumer complaint and the level at which a problem is resolved within a company depends upon the complexity of the issue involved.
14. If the consumer is not satisfied with the resolution of the complaints, he can approach the next tier - the Appellate Authority for redressal of his complaints. Additionally, in order to strengthen the functioning of Appellate Authority, it was proposed in the draft regulations to replace the existing Appellate Authority with a three member Appellate Authority including one member from CAGs and one member from the service provider, all the members being appointed by the service provider. During consultation process, while the consumer organisations had supported the proposals, the service providers and industry associations argued that the above proposals were not feasible. Essentially, they did not want any outside agency in the decision making apparatus. After discussions on this issue, the Authority has decided that there would be a two-member Advisory Committee comprising of one representative of consumer organisation registered with TRAI and one member from the service provider, to render advice to the Appellate Authority on every appeal filed before the Appellate Authority.
15. The regulations now prescribe that every service provider shall appoint an Appellate Authority in each service area within forty-five days of commencement of these regulations. The Appellate Authority shall be a one or more than one member body, at the discretion of the service provider. Every appellate authority shall have a Secretariat. The Secretariat shall register the appeal, acknowledge the appeal with a unique appeal number, and forward the appeal to the service provider for its reply. On receipt of reply from the service provider, it shall place before the Advisory Committee the appeal and reply received from the service provider, for its advice. On receipt of advice of Advisory Committee, it shall place before the Appellate Authority the appeal filed, reply received from the service provider and advice tendered by the Advisory Committee for a decision. The Appellate Authority shall take a decision on the appeal upon placing of the appeal by the Secretariat.
16. The regulations also provide for the time bound resolution of complaints received by the Authority and referred to service provider. These provisions are similar to the provisions contained in the Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations, 2007.
17. The regulations also provide for a Citizen's Charter. Keeping the interest of the consumer, the Authority has prescribed detailed guidelines, regarding material to be published in the Citizen's Charter. The provisions of this Charter are similar to the Manual of Practice for handling consumer complaints provided in the Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations, 2007. The Citizen's Charter, additionally, provides details about General Information Number, Consumer Care Number, right of consumers under the different regulations, orders and directions issued by the Authority, in particular those relating to Tariff, Mobile Number Portability, Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2010 and Value Added Services.
18. These regulations are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. At any point of time, either during the redressal of the complaint under these regulations or thereafter, can seek legal remedy under any law for the time being in force.