|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarified TRAI in this letter: "The objective of the Authority in issuing these directions has been to provide the customers with the opportunity to make an informed choice and also to protect them from subscribing to or being billed for any service due to lack of proper information or understanding." Yet, you find service providers violating these directions and taking subscribers by surprise on tariff. So much so that there are complaints of change of tariff plan without prior intimation to the subscriber or approval of the subscriber, charging for services not asked for and lack of transparency in the tariff structure, to name just a few. A recent order of the apex consumer court has made it clear that service providers have to respect the consumers' right to information and informed choice or else face the consequences. The order, wherein it has held a telecom service provider guilty of deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice for not being transparent about the tariff, should send out a warning signal to telecom service providers in particular and all service providers in general. The complaint here revolved around a steep bill for Rs 21,736 received by the complainant, Arvind Reddy. His contention was that he had been charged at the rate of Rs 500 per minute for an ISD call. This came as a surprise to him because nowhere was this rate mentioned in the tariff plan given to him when he opted for the cell-phone service. The service provider, on the other hand, argued that the call for which the complainant was charged at Rs 500 per minute was made to a satellite phone. The tariff for calls to satellite phones was different from that of regular International Subscriber Dialing (ISD) calls and this was made known to the subscriber. Besides, this information was also published in some newspapers, the service provider argued. The district consumer disputes redressal forum, after scrutinising the tariff plan given to the subscriber, came to the conclusion that he was not informed of the special charges for the satellite telephone and, therefore, the service provider was wrong in charging at that rate. The forum, therefore, held the service provider guilty of unfair trade practice and asked him to revise the bill in accordance with the appropriate regular ISD tariff. In addition, the forum asked the service provider to pay the consumer Rs 5000 as compensation and Rs 1000 as costs. It also directed the service provider to desist from resorting to such unfair trade practices in future. Aggrieved, the service provider filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission, which dismissed it. The national consumer disputes redressal commission, before which a revision petition was filed, also dismissed it. While doing so, the commission pointed out that in the tariff card, there was no mention of the rate of Rs 500 per minute for calls to satellite telephones, nor was there a clarification of the asterisk marks against a couple of rates. It, therefore, saw no justification for interfering with the orders of the lower courts (Vodafone Essar South Ltd vs Arvind Reddy, RP No 2775 of 2007, decided on 26-9-2011). Regulators in various sectors such as telecom, insurance and banking have upheld the client’s right to information, either through regulations or through directives issued to the service providers. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) regulation on the protection of policy holders' interest, for example, makes it clear that all information pertaining to the policy, including the exclusion clauses, should be fully explained to the customer at the time of proposal. Similarly, the Reserve Bank of India, through its circulars, has underscored the importance of prior intimation to people on any changes to be brought about in banking norms or banking charges. TRAI, too, has hauled up service providers for misleading advertisements. Yet, service providers violate them, forcing consumers to seek the help of courts. Now in several recent orders, the apex court, too, has highlighted the consumers' right to information and made it clear that denial or violation of that right constitutes deficiency in service and clients are entitled to compensation for any consequential loss or suffering. This is yet another important order in that direction.
|
The
