Is compensation policy only way to tackle call drops, Delhi HC asks TRAI

The Delhi High Court today questioned the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) whether its compensation policy was the only solution to ensure that the issue of call drops is resolved..The Division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Jayant Nath J.. made these observations while hearing a petition filed by telecom operators who had challenged this policy on grounds of it being a ‘penal form of Regulation’..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi who appeared for the Cellular Operators Association told the Court that the menace of call drops was a problem for telecom operators as well. Singhvi argued that the Regulation was doubling up as a form of de-facto taxation over an issue which was ‘not done intentionally by the operators’..“Call drops happen when there are insufficient towers. Even then, everyday we see PILs being filed in this Court over mobile towers causing difficulties. Indiscriminate and arbitrary sealing of towers, difficulty in laying down of optical fibers or damage caused to these fibers also contributed to call drops. Such issues are not entirely attributable to the operators and yet the Regulation makes it a strict liability of operators.”.Singhvi further argued that if for every three incomplete calls the company was to pay money to one subscriber per day, the financial repercussions would be huge..ASG PS Narsimha, who appeared for TRAI, submitted that while it was not possible to provide network signals in every nook and cranny of the country, the Regulation ought not to be seen as an ‘executive power exercised by the Government’ and the question of arbitrariness or unreasonableness would not apply..“See it from the perspective of a consumer. It is a contract between the licensor (Telco) and the consumer. So if there is a drop in the call while it is being transferred through the network of the licensor, then that amounts to breach of the contract. How do you repay him for his loss?”.While Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Petitioners, also wanted to argue, the matter was adjourned to January 11 due to paucity of time. Till that period, the Bench directed the Government to not take any co-ercive steps in this regard.