 "SC to continue hearing call drop case on March 15")
The court was hearing their appeals againstthe Delhi high court judgment upholding the regulation mandating them to compensate consumers Re one for call drops from January 1.
Read more from our special coverage on "CALL DROP"
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing them, argued that there was no system in the world where there is zero default. Global standards allow 2% call drops and the TRAI has also recognised it, counsel submitted before a bench consisting of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohington Nariman.
When the judges asked counsel whether any ofthe 12 top service providers has been penalised under the TRAI order, counsel said they were not. Counsel said that according to the authorities, the national average of call drops was less than 1%, which was well within prescribed limits.
The penalty is merely a populist measure, Sibal alleged. Hecontended that there are several imponderables, which militated against zero call drops, and it cannot be presumed that the fault was that of the service providers. There are factors beyond their control. Radiowaves may not enter closed spaces, there might be gaps in the towers, power breakdowns might affect the network, the handset might be from the gray market andthe battery might have gone weak.
Under these various situations, it is impossible to locate the reasons for the call drops. It could be related to the subscriber or the network. The TRAI regulations presume that it is always the fault of the service providers. There is no way for adjudication if there is a dispute, counsel said. Sibal also challenged the regulation which hesaid was violative of the TRAI Act.
Standards have been laid down in the regulations for quality of service. There shall be 98% efficiency and 2per cent is the tolerance level. However, instead of stressing the quality, the regulation imposes penalty. He said that the telcos had invested $40 billion. If they have to pay Re one up to three call drops, it would amount to a huge amount.
Counsel also quoted the new telecomsecretary who stated that the state governments are not able to implement their commitment to follow the regulations. Towers are shut down for fear of health hazards and popular unrest. Without towers, efficiency cannot be assured by the service providers. The arguments were inconclusive on Thursday. The Attorney General who defended the TRAI order is yet to reply to the telco's arguments. The hearing will continue on Tuesday.