Delhi

North East

CC/227/2018

Mr. Subodh Kant Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel Store & Other - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 227/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Subodh Kant Rana S/o Sh. Mehander Singh Rana R/o H.No. 50, Old Kardam Puri Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1           2	Airtel Store Telecommunication Service Provider A 6/2 Main Chajjupur 100 ft Road Opp. Delhi Darbar Restaurant Shahdara, Delhi 110032   Bharti Airtel Ltd. (H.O.) 6th Floor, Tower-A, Plot No. 16 Udyog Vihar Indl. Area, Phase-IV Gurgaon 22016	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                DATE OF DECISION :

16.11.2018 22.07.2019 22.07.2019

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is using Airtel Postpaid connection for his mobile phone no. 9958972257 under plan @399/- per month which was ported from Idea to Airtel in 2017. However, there were many issues / problems of poor network 4G speed and call dropping etc for which complainant was suffering in his professional work due to non connectivity with his clients and therefore has filed the present complaint before this Forum claiming damages for mental agony against the OP to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of legal notice dated 06.10.2018 to OPs alongwith postal receipts and track report.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs which entered appearance on 28.01.2019 and filed written statement. However, no discussion is required for defence taken by the OPs therein, keeping in view Parliamentary Panel Report of April 2017 since call drops were not under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and only if the said report was adopted, a tele–consumer would be able to take service providers to consumer court for poor service.
3. To curb the issue of call drops in India Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had issued a Regulation in January 2016 vide Telecom Consumer Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations 2015 notified on 16.10.2015, (to take effect from 01.01.2016) and it provided for compensation to be provided to consumers @ of Rs. 1/- for every call drop cover under clause 2 (bb) of the said Regulation, subject to an upper limit of Rs. 3/- per day to be paid by Telecom Companies. A Writ Petition (Civil)                      No. 11596 of 2015 was filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by Telecom Regulators challenging the above mentioned Ninth Amendment to the Regulation mentioned above. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 29.02.2016 repelled the challenge of the appellants of Regulations being ultra vires and unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary. Therefore, against the above said order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Telecom operators had preferred Civil Appeal No. 5017/2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6521/2016 before Hon’ble Supreme Court titled Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Ors and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 11.05.2016 held the TRAI Regulation to be “manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable” since the compensation could in fact be a “unjustifiable windfall” for consumers who could themselves be at fault. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that TRAI had no empirical evidence to corroborate that call drops were attributable to deficiency in service by service providers, especially when its own technical paper had in 2015 showed that an average of 36.9% can be call drops owing to fault of consumer. Further, while quashing the Regulation, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the impugned Regulation fell outside the objective of TRAI Act and violative of appellant Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of Constitution  and set aside judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. A Parliamentary Report of April 2017 has suggested that call drops should be brought under the purview of CPA which if adopted, can entitle a Telecom user to take service provider to a consumer court for poor service.
4. As on date, there is no provision / statute or Government notification bringing call drops network / connectivity issues within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and therefore the complaint is dismissed on merits as non maintainable and outside the ambit and relief provided under Consumer Protection Act.         
5.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6.   File be consigned to record room.
7.   Announced on 22.07.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member