Q2.

a)

The Telecom Regulations Authority of India, which was founded on February 20, 1997, oversees
the telecom industry. It was created to keep India's tariffs uniform. The Telecom Regulations
Authority of India Act, 1997, is the law that governs this industry. In order to protect consumers
from frauds, the TRAI has implemented a number of programs. Mycall, Myspeed, and do not
disturb (DND 2.0) were developed to encourage transparency and give consumers access to
information about the actual payments made by users to the operators.

Regarding whether telecom problems can be resolved by a consumer forum, there have been a
number of disputes before the CPA, 2019. Consumers may file complaints under the Consumer
Protection Act under the provisions of the Telecom Consumers Protection and Redressal of
Grievances Regulations, 2007. The consumer forum's jurisdiction has been used in a variety of
situations, including overcharging by telephone carriers, administrative issues like a delay in
processing a request to change a phone line's address or one that is out of order, broadband
services provided by phone companies like BSNL, and fraudulent messages that customers have
received as a result of phone companies like Bharathi Airtel's negligence, among others.

Filing a Complaint to The Service Provider:

By calling the toll-free number, sending an email, or going in person, the complainant must file a
complaint with the service provider. The link available on the website leads the complainant to
the service provider's addresses according to their jurisdiction.

The complaint may escalate the matter to the relevant service provider's appellate authority if the
problem is not rectified within a window of three to seven days. The appellate authority responds
by taking the advisory committee's recommendations into consideration. On the website, the
complaint can find the contact information for the appropriate appeal authority as well as the
form that must be completed before the appellate authority.

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal:

The consumer may appeal further to the appellate authority if the service provider rejects their
complaint. In order to safeguard consumer interests and ensure the growth of the telecom
industry, it is an adjudicatory body that resolves disputes between customers and service
providers. It was founded on May 29th, 2000. It can resolve conflicts:

(i) Between a licensee and a licensor.

(ii) Among two or more providers of services

(iii)Between a service provider and a group of customers

The Tribunal's Procedure for Disposing of Appeals Was as Follows:

 The tribunal has the authority to order the parties to mediate if it so chooses.
 The tribunal supports mediation since it would reduce the time and financial outlay.
 The matter may be sent back to the tribunal if the mediator is unable to resolve it.
 The mediation meetings won't be broadcast publicly. We would protect your privacy.
 If the issue is resolved, the tribunal sets a time for the statement to be recorded and a
decision to be made.

If The Issue Is Not Resolved by The Mediators, The Procedure for Filing a Complaint Is:

The complainant needs assistance from an advocate in order to make a complaint; they are
unable to do so on their own. The process through the TDSAT is comparable to the process in
court.

 The petition must be filed after the advocate files a vakalat (with the form)
 The petition must be properly filed (with the required stamps and documentation), and
the opposing parties must get a copy of the petition.
 The pagination of the cases submitted to the tribunal must be continuous, starting with
the petition or appeal and continuing with the annexures.
 An additional book labeled volume 2 must be created if the number of pages exceeds
200.
 The TDSAT must be charged a fee in order to file a petition or appeal.

Procedure for Filing an Appeal:

If there are four respondents, the appeal must be filed together with fees of Rs. 10,000; if there
are more respondents, an additional Rs. 50 must be paid to the TDSAT. The submission is
completed in accordance with the guidelines established for appeal filing. The official website
has the form that the appellate must complete.

If a person's complaint relates to landline, mobile, or internet service categories, the complainant
can file a complaint on the grounds of Contracts, Connecting new services, Transferring services,
SIM unlocking fees, Faults, dropouts and poor coverage, Billing mistakes, Billing and supply of
mobile premium services, Debt collection Etc.

Case Law

Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal (Supreme Court of India) held that
although there is no legal need that a consumer use arbitration as a remedy, they are free to do so
and are also free to pursue the other available options under the 2019 Consumer Protection Act.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) decision to uphold the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's position that Section 7B of the Telegraph Act,
1885, would not apply to a private sector service provider because it is not a Telegraph Authority
was appealed by Vodafone, and the Supreme Court of India has now rendered its decision.

On May 25, 2014, a certain Ajay Kumar Agarwal filed a consumer complaint with the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Ahmedabad, saying that Vodafone had provided
substandard service. According to the complaint, Mr. Agarwal had a post-paid mobile
connection, was paying Vodafone $249 per month in basic rent, and Vodafone was delivering
mobile telecom services to him. Based on this, it was claimed that a customer-service provider
relationship existed. With the help of a credit card provided by his bankers, Mr. Agrawal had
signed up for a "auto pay" system via which Vodafone would be paid ahead of schedule, making
it easier for him to pay his bills on time. He claimed that the usual monthly bill was about Rs 555
but that the respondent received a bill for Rs 24,609.51 between November 8 and December 7,
2013. Mr. Agrawal filed a complaint with the district consumer forum alleging that Vodafone
had overcharged him. He also requested consequential remedies and compensation in the amount
of Rs 22,000 plus interest.

The Indian Telegraph Act of 1885's arbitration provision, which is of a statutory nature and does
not supersede the authority of the consumer forum in such cases, was upheld by the Supreme
Court of India. A customer would be free to choose arbitration as a remedy, but there is no legal
requirement that they do so. They are also free to turn to the legal options provided by the Act of
2019, which has replaced the (Consumer Protection) Act of 1986. The National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had upheld the SCDRC's position that a
private service provider would not be subject to Section 7B of the Act of 1885 because it is not a
"Telegraph Authority," had issued an order that Vodafone claimed was invalid. The top court
handed down its decision on Vodafone's appeal.

In a recent order, the court stated that it could not be inferred from the inclusion of the term
"telecom services" in the definition found in Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act of
2019 that telecom services were not subject to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the
earlier Act of 1986. The bench argued that Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act of
1986's definition of "service" was broad enough to include telecom services among all other
types of services.

b)