Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART III—Section 4
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 631] NEW DELHI , TUESDAY , SEPTEMBER 12, 2023/ BHADRA 21, 1945
CG-DL-E-14092023-248666
CG-DL-E-14092023-248666
(ii) +0.01% (1:10,000) से -0.01% (1:10,000) के बीच,
माचथ 2023 2,17,250
िूि 2022 2,03,938
*****
TELECOM REGULATORY A UTHORITY OF INDIA
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi , the 11th September , 2023
F. No. C -2/8/(1)/2021 -QoS. —In exercise of the powers conferred by section 36, read with sub -clauses (i)
and (v) of clause (b) a nd clause (d) of sub -section (1) of section 11, of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act,
1997 (24 of 1997), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India hereby makes the following regulations, namely:
Quality of Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy) Regulations, 2023 (03 of 2023)
1. Short title, extent and commencement. — (1) These regulations may be called the Quality of Service (Code
of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy) Regulations, 2023.
(2) These regulations shall be applicable to all the service providers having -
(a) Unified Access Service License; or
(b) Unified License with authorization for Access Service.
(3) They shall come into force from the 1st day of April, 2024.
2. Definitions. — (1) In these regulation s, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) ‘access service’ means Access Services as defined under the Unified License agreement;
(b) ‘Act’ means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (24 of 1997);
(c) ‘overcharging’ means failure of service provider to meet the commitment of the tariff offered and
includes –
(i) a chargeable event for which the charge to the subscriber exceeds the rates specified in the tariff
plan opted by the subscriber; and
(ii) any other amount which is not part of the tariff plan opted o r consented by the subscriber, but has
been charged from the subscriber;
(d) ‘quarter’ means a period of three consecutive months ending on the 30th June, the 30th September, the 31st
December and the 31st March of the financial year;
(e) ‘year’ means the financi al year.
(2) Words and expressions used and not defined in these regulations, but defined in the Act, shall have the
meanings respectively assigned to them in the Act.
3. Code of Practice for metering and billing accuracy. — Every service provider shall c omply with the code
of practice for metering and billing accuracy as laid down in the Schedule to these regulations .
4. Appointment of auditor for audit of metering and billing systems .— (1) The Authority may, from time to
time, notify the panel of audito rs, who meet the eligibility conditions specified by the Authority in this regard , to audit
the accuracy of metering and billing systems of the service providers, in accordance with the provisions of
regulation 5 .
(2) Every service provider shall, by the thirt y first day of March every year, appoint an auditor from the panel of
auditors notified by the Authority under sub -regulation (1), to audit at its cost, the accuracy of its metering and billing
systems and License Service Areas in accordance with the provi sions of regulation 5 :
Provided that the Authority may, on receipt of request from the service provider, extend the time for
appointment of the auditor and the service provider shall appoint the auditor within such extended time:
Provided further that the service provider may appoint an auditor for one or more services:
Provided also that the service provider shall not appoint an auditor –
(a) consecutively for more than two years;
(b) who is its internal or statutory or cost auditor; and
(c) with whom it has had a dir ect business relationship during the last one year.
Explanation: The appointment of auditor, for the purposes of these regulations, to audit the accuracy of metering and
billing systems under these regulations, shall not be treated as a business relations hip.
Provided also that the Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, appoint any person at its cost,
who meets the eligibility criteria specified by the Authority, to audit the accuracy of the metering and billing systems
of a service provide r and in that case, the service provider shall not appoint an auditor under these regulations.
5. Audit of metering and billing systems and Licensed Service Areas .— (1) Every service provider shall get
the accuracy of its centralized or distributed meteri ng and billing system and Licensed Service Areas audited for
access service, by an auditor, appointed under regulation 4, in such a manner that –
(a) the audit of the accuracy of billing system, either centralized or distributed at different locations, is done
before taking up the audit of any Licensed Service Area being served by that billing system, as specified
by the Authority;
(b) each billing system, whether centralized or distributed, is audited at least once in a financial year latest by
the 30th June;
(c) each Licensed Service Area is audited for accuracy of metering and billing at least once in a financial
year; and
(d) the Licensed Service Areas, for the purposes of audit, are evenly distributed throughout the four quarters
of a financial year as far as possible and for every quarter of a financial year, at least one Licensed
Service Area is audited.
(2) Every service provider shall submit to the Authority every year, by the fifteenth day of April, its annual
schedule of audit, containing the details of billing Sy stems and Licensed Service Areas to be audited as per sub -
regulation (1):
Provided that the Authority may modify the schedule submitted by the service provider and the service
provider shall adhere to such modified schedule of audit.
(3) Every service provider shall provide to the auditor, the raw call data records as may be required by the
auditor for conduct of audit, within thirty days of receipt of request for such records from the auditor.
(4) Every service provider shall provid e to the auditor, all necessary documents/information required for audit,
other than raw call data records, within seven days of receipt of request for such documents/information from the
auditor.
(5) Every service provider shall provide to the auditor, its comments on an audit observation, within fifteen days
of receipt of such observation, for inclusion of such comments in the audit report.
(6) Every service provider shall adhere to such guidelines and checklist for the audit, as may be issued by the
Authority in this regard, from time to time.
(7) In addition to the audit under sub -regulation (1), the Authority may audit accuracy of metering and billing
system of any service provider, either on its own or through any auditor, which may or may not be o n the panel
notified under regulation 4.
6. Action by service provider on the instances of overcharging observed by the auditor and reporting
thereof .— (1) If the auditor observes an instance of overcharging during the audit under sub -regulation (1) of
regulation 5, it shall be brought to the notice of the service provider, in writing, immediately but not later than one
week of such observation.
(2) On receipt of audit observation under sub -regulation (1), the service provider shall conduct an analysis to
verify whether such observation is correct.
(3) If, on analysis under sub -regulation (2), the service provider finds the audit obse rvation to be correct, it
shall –
(a) take immediate action to rectify the errors in its metering and billing system and submit to th e auditor,
within fifteen days of the receipt of audit observation under sub -regulation (1), its comments on such
observation and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the service provider thereon, which shall be
recorded in the audit report along wi th the final recommendations of the auditor;
(b) identify the subscribers affected by such overcharging in every Licensed Service Area served by the
metering and billing system, calculate the total amount overcharged from each of such subscribers and
submit to the Authority and to the auditor, the details of overcharged amounts, in such format and at such
intervals, as the Authority may specify, from time to time;
(c) refund the overcharged amount to the subscribers, within three months of the receipt of the audit
observation under sub -regulation (1):
Provided that in case any overcharged amount remains pending for refund after three months, the service
provider shall continue to make effort to refund such amount to the subscribers, subject to the provisions of
regulation 9:
Provided further that in case the service provider fails to refund any overcharged amount to the subscriber
within twelve months from the date of receipt of the audit observation under sub -regulation (1), it shall
transfer the amount to the cred it of the Telecommunication Consumers Education and Protection Fund, as
per the provisions of the Telecommunication Consumers Education and Protection Fund Regulations, 2007
(6 of 2007).
(4) If, on analysis under sub -regulation (2), the service provider finds the audit observation to be incorrect, it
shall submit to the auditor, within fifteen days of the receipt of the audit observation under sub -regulation (1), its
comments on such observation with justifications and supporting documentary evidence, which sha ll be recorded in
the audit report along with the final recommendations of the auditor .
7. Submission of audit report and action taken report. — (1) Every service provider shall submit to the
Authority, within three months from the end of the respective qu arter, the audit report, duly certified by the auditor, of
access services provided on wireline and wireless media, separately, of each billing system and Licensed Service Area
audited in respective quarter, in such format as the Authority may direct, from time to time.
(2) Every service provider shall submit to the Authority, within two months of the date of submission of the
audit report to the Authority, the action taken report thereon, in respect of each billing system and Licensed Service
Area audited , along with the status of audit observations pending to be resolved from previous quarters, if any, in such
format as the Authority may direct, from time to time.
8. Consequences for failure of the service provider to submit audit report or action taken report. — (1) If
any service provider contravenes the provisions of regulation 7, it shall, without prejudice to the terms and conditions
of its licen ce, or the provisions of the Act or rules or regulations or orders made, or directions issued, thereunder, be
liable to pay an amount, by way of financial disincentive, not exceeding rupees five thousand per day per report for
delay of first ten days, rupees ten thousand per day per report for delay of next ten days and after twenty days, rupees
fifteen thousan d per report for each subsequent day of delay during which the default continues, subject to a
maximum of rupees fifty lakhs per report, as the Authority may, by order, direct:
Provided that no order for payment of any amount by way of financial disincenti ve shall be made by the
Authority, unless the service provider has been given a reasonable opportunity of representing against the
contravention of the regulation observed by the Authority.
(2) The Authority reserves the right not to impose financial disin centive or to impose a lower amount of
financial disincentive than the amount payable as per the provisions in sub -regulation (1) where it finds merit in the
reasons furnished by the service provider.
(3) The amount payable by way of financial disincentiv e under this regulation shall be remitted to such head of
account as may be specified by the Authority.
9. Consequences for overcharging and failure of the service provider to refund the overcharged amounts
to subscribers. — (1) Every service provider sha ll, upon detection of an instance of overcharging during the audit
under sub -regulation (1) of regulation 5, without prejudice to the terms and conditions of its license, or the provisions
of the Act or rules or regulations or orders made, or directions is sued, thereunder, be liable to pay an amount, by way
of financial disincentive, not exceeding ten per cent of the total amount overcharged from all subscribers affected by
such instance of overcharging, as the Authority may, by order, direct.
(2) If any s ervice provider fails to refund the overcharged amount within three months of receipt of the audit
observation on the instance of overcharging under regulation 6, it shall, without prejudice to the terms and conditions
of its license, or the provisions of the Act or rules or regulations or orders made, or directions issued, thereunder, be
liable to pay an amount, by way of financial disincentive, to be calculated in the following manner -
S. No. Overcharged Amount Amount of Financial Disincentive
(a) Amount no t refunded within three
months Not exceeding one hundred percent (100%) of amount not
refunded
(b) Amount refunded after three months
but before six months Seventy five percent (75%) of the amount refunded during this
period shall be deducted from the appli cable financial disincentive
in (a), while accounting final financial disincentive
(c) Amount refunded after six months
but within twelve months Fifty percent (50%) of amount refunded during this period shall
be deducted from the applicable financial disinc entive in (a),
while accounting final financial disincentive
(3) No order for payment of any amount by way of financial disincentive under this regulation shall be made by
the Authority unless the service provider has been given a reasonable opportunity o f representing against the
contravention of the regulation observed by the Authority.
(4) No financial disincentive shall be levied under this regulation for failure to refund the excess charges if
financial disincentive for such overcharging has been lev ied for violation of the provisions of the Telecommunication
Tariff Order, 1999.
(5) The Authority reserves the right not to impose financial disincentive or to impose a lower amount of
financial disincentive than the amount payable as per the provisions i n sub -regulation (1) and (2) where it finds merit
in the reasons furnished by the service provider.
(6) The amount payable by way of financial disincentive under this regulation shall be remitted to such head of
account as may be specified by the Authorit y.
10. Consequences for submission of incomplete or false action taken report. — (1) If a service provider fails
to provide required details of the action taken on the audit observations under sub -regulation (2) of regulation 7, or
submits such details the rein which it knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, it shall, without
prejudice to the terms and conditions of its license, or the provisions of the Act or rules or regulations or orders made,
or directions issued, thereunder, be li able to pay an amount, by way of financial disincentive, not exceeding rupees ten
lakhs per action taken report, as the Authority may, by order, direct:
Provided that no order for payment of any amount by way of financial disincentive shall be made by the
Authority unless the service provider has been given a reasonable opportunity of representing against the
contravention of the regulation observed by the Authority.
(2) The Authority reserves the right not to impose financial disincentive or to impose a lower amount of
financial disincentive than the amount payable as per the provisions in sub -regulation (1) where it finds merit in the
reasons furnished by the service provider.
(3) The amount payable by way of financial disincentive under these regulations sha ll be remitted to such head
of account as may be specified by the Authority.
11. Exclusions. — Compliance with the requirements contained in these regulations shall need to be
demonstrated only in relation to tariff offering having material impact on the s ubscriber’s bill as may be specified by
the Authority from time to time.
12. Retention of records. — Every service provider shall preserve the records pertaining to a financial year
required for compliance of these regulations, including the records shared with auditor, for one year after submission
of all audit reports of that financial year.
13. Interpretation. — In case of any doubt regarding interpretation of any of the provisions of these regulations,
the decision of the Authority shall be final and bin ding.
14. Repeal and saving. — (1) The Quality of Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy)
Regulation 2006 (5 of 2006) is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, provisions of the said regulations shall continue to be applic able for the audit of the
metering and billing systems for the financial year 2023 -24.
(3) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken, or purported to have been done or taken, under
the said regulations shall be deemed to have been don e or taken under the corresponding provisions of these
regulations.
V. RAGHUNANDAN, Secy.
[ADVT. -III/4/Exty./ 415/2023 -24]
Note: The explanatory memorandum explains the objects and reasons of the Quality of Service (Code of Practice for
Metering and Billin g Accuracy) Regulations, 2023.
SCHEDULE
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR METERING AND BILLING ACCURACY
1. Information relating to tariffs
1.1 Before a subscriber is enrolled for any telecommunication service, the subscriber shall be provided the detail ed
information relating to the tariff applicable for that service.
1.2 The subscriber shall be informed, in accordance with the regulations, directions and tariff orders/ orders issued
by the Authority, as issued from time to time, about -
(i) the tariff plan subscribed by subscriber;
(ii) quantity related charges such as the charge for voice calls, SMS message, or data in Kilobyte or
Megabyte as the case may be etc.;
(iii) accuracy of measurement of time, duration and of quantity, and also the resolution and round ing rules,
including the underlying units, used when calculating the charges for an individual event or an
aggregation of event; and
(iv) contractual terms and conditions for provision, restriction, and termination of service, etc.;
Where a value -added service (e.g. download of content, such as a film or ring tone) or entry to an interactive service
(such as a game) can be selected through a choice of the service users (e.g., by dialing a specific number) then the
charge for the service must be provided to the subscribers before they commit to use the service.
1.3 The information about all the tariff offerings viz. tariff plans, Plan Vouchers, Top Up Vouchers, Special
Tariff Vouchers and Combo Vouchers on offer shall be available on the website, the mobile applicati on (App) of the
service provider, and the tariff portal of TRAI etc., in accordance with the regulations, directions and orders issued by
the Authority, from time to time.
2. Provision of service
The services provided to the subscriber and all subs equent changes therein shall be those agreed with the subscriber
prior to providing the service or changing its provisions.
3. Accuracy of measurement
3.1 All charges for telecommunication services levied on the subscriber shall be consistent wit h the tariff
applicable to the subscriber and in accordance with the details of tariff offerings filed by the service providers with
the Authority from time to time.
3.2 Unless otherwise specified in the published Tariff or previously agreed Tariff, a cha rge shall be determined in
accordance with the following limits:
(a) Where the charge is dependent upon duration, the recorded duration shall be measured to within:
(i) Between +1 seconds and –1 second; or
(ii) Between +0.01% (1:10,000) to –0.02% (1:5,000), whichever is less stringent; and
(b) where the charge is dependent upon the time of day, the time of day shall be recorded to within ±1
second, traceable to an appropriate time reference; and
(c) where the charges are dependent upon the counting of occurrences of a particular type, the count shall be
accurate to no more than plus 1/25,000 (0.004%) or minus 1/1,000 (0.1%); and
(d) where the charge is dependent upon the volume of the data consumed, data volume should be measured
within:
(i) Between +100 kB to -100 kB; or
(ii) Between +0.01% (1:10,000) to -0.01% (1:10,000), whichever is less stringent.
3.3 Where measurement under clauses 3.2 (a), (b), (c) & (d) reveals systematic errors in timing or counting that
result in overcharged events which are not stated in published tariffs then correction should take place to ensure
accurate bills.
4. Reliability of billing
4.1 The performance of a total Metering and Billing system shall be, subject to the tolerances specified in clause
3.2,—
(a) the numbers of items of servi ce usage that are overcharged events or undercharged events, as a
proportion of the total number of chargeable events, shall not exceed the limits shown in Table 1; and
(b) the sum of the values of the errors in the overcharged events or undercharged events, a s a proportion of
the total value of the total number of chargeable events, shall not exceed the limits shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Total Metering and Billing system reliability performance requirements
Chargeable events Performance
Number under or not ch arged 0.1% (1 in 1000)
Number overcharged 0.004% (1 in 25,000)
Value under or not charged 0.05% (1 in 2000)
Value overcharged 0.002% (1 in 50,000)
4.2 Where implementation of an order for a service, feature or discount which depends on the number o r duration
of chargeable events is applied at variance with published tariffs, each chargeable event within the scope of
the incorrectly applied order shall be an undercharged event or an overcharged event, as appropriate, for the
purposes of clause 4.1.
4.3 Where an item of service usage is completed other than intended, but the charge applied is correct for the
service as delivered, this shall not be regarded as either an undercharged event or an overcharged event.
4.4 The increase in duration or num ber of items of service usage resulting from degraded transmission
performance shall not be considered when computing the performance of the system.
5. Applying credit to accounts
5.1 For post -paid accounts, payments made by a subscriber shall be credited to his account within three (03)
working days of receipt of the online/cash/ cheque. Where credit is given by the service provider, this shall be
applied within one (01) working day of its agreement.
5.2 For pre -paid accounts, top -up credit shal l be applied to a subscriber’s account within fifteen (15) minutes of its
application. Where credit is given by the service provider, this shall be applied within one (01) day of its
agreement.
6. Timeliness of postpaid billing
6.1 The timeliness of bill issue or bill data file issue shall be subject to systematic processes.
6.2 Any chargeable events, the details of which are not available when the bill is prepared, shall be included in a
subsequent bill, but not later than the fourth monthly bill after the chargeable events occurred. Any details
not so presented shall be written off and if significant be counted against the performance for undercharged
events in clause 4.1. Exceptionally, event details from a separate service provider may be bille d up to three
months after receipt.
6.3 Agreement to extend the timescales described in clause 6.2 may be sought from TRAI. An extension will
only be granted in exceptional cases and considering following:
(a) the method of informing the subscribers of a protracted delay in rendering call records onto a
subsequent bill; and
(b) the integrity of the billing process audit arrangements.
6.4 The service provider shall contract with its delivery agent to ensure that an effective bill or bill data file
delivery schedule is in place. The existence of such a contract shall be subject to audit.
7. Restriction and removal of service
Where the service provider unilaterally intends to restrict or cease service to the subscriber, a notice of such action
with details of relevant provisions under which such action is intended shall be given to the subscriber, in advance, so
that the subscriber has reasonable time to take preventive action to avoid restriction or cessation of service.
8. Complaint han dling
8.1 The service provider shall have a documented process for identifying, investigating, and dealing with billing
complaints. The service provider shall maintain appropriate records thereof.
8.2 Complaints regarding overcharging, refund of security and other deposits with service provider shall be
treated as billing complaints and all such cases shall be resolved in accordance with the provision of the
respective regulations.
8.3 The service provider shall carry out a root cause analysis for each upheld billing complaint, categorize the
cause and establish proportionate remedial action to correct it.
8.4 Where the root cause affects multiple subscriber accounts, then all affected bills shall, if practicable, be
included in remedial action plan.
8.5 Where remedial action has not been completed and the cause is likely to affect other bills when issued, then the
service provider shall take reasonable steps to ensure that they are checked and, if necessary, corrected,
before being sent to the subsc riber. If not checked and corrected such bills shall be included in a remedial
action plan (clause 8.4).
Explanatory Memorandum
1. Background
1.1 TRAI has issued Quality of Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy) Regulation, 2006 (5
of 2006) dated 21st March 2006. These regulations contain a Code of Practice for Metering and Billing
Accuracy that must be complied by every Basic Service Providers, Unified Access Service Providers and
Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Providers. Subsequently, T RAI issued a Direction dated 12th June 2012 to
the access service providers with regard to maintenance of service area -wise Master Table and to record the
steps taken to configure the new number series and new tariff plans.
1.2 Amendment to the Quality of Serv ice (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy) Regulation, 2006
was issued on 25th March 2013, amending the regulations with regard to procedure for auditing call data
records (CDR); obligations of auditor; provisions of levying financial disince ntives (FD) for default in
submission of reports, delay in refund of overcharged amounts to the subscribers etc. The timeline for
submission of audit reports and action taken report by service providers were also revised to 31st July and 15th
November ever y year in the amended regulation. Subsequently, Guidelines and Checklist for Audit were issued
on 16th May 2013, facilitating Service Providers and the empaneled Auditors in carrying out the Audit of
metering and billing systems effectively and specifying the formats for submission of the various reports
related to audit.
1.3 In 2017, a committee was constituted to assess the effectiveness of the current audit procedure. Special audit of
the metering and billing system of a few service providers in one service area was carried out in 2018. This
special audit and audit findings of previous years revealed certain issues which were not covered
comprehensively under the existing framework of audit of metering and billing systems. During interaction
with the auditors , certain issues impacting the effectiveness of the audit of metering and billing systems also
emerged.
1.4 Over the time, the telecom networks have also undergone significant changes, and many new services are being
offered by the telecom service providers. T ariff offerings as well as the usage patterns of the services have also
changed significantly. Advanced, robust, and scalable IT products have also found their way into the telecom
industry which enable (i) correlation between tariff offerings and tariff s ubscribed with usage patterns (ii)
checking of revenue leakage and (iii) management of subscriber churn and host of other data analytics
techniques.
1.5 In view of the above, the Authority undertook a public consultation in the matter by releasing a Consultati on
Paper1 on “ Review of The Quality of Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy)
Regulations, 2006 ” on 1st September 2020 seeking comments of stakeholders by 27th October 2020. In
response to the consultation paper, the Authority receive d comments from 13 stakeholders and 1 counter
comment. An Open House Discussion (OHD ) was also held with the stakeholders at New Delhi on 3rd March
2021. One more opportunity was given to the stakeholders to give additional comments after the OHD, and two
additional comments were received. The Consultation was focused on the issues arising out of changing
scenarios in the telecom networks, changing nature of tariff offerings and usage pattern of subscribers,
enhancement of IT capabilities with Telecom Servi ce Providers etc.
1.6 Following are the key issues raised in the consultation paper (CP):
(i) Change in sampling methodology of the tariff plans selected for audit, audit of full spectrum of tariff
plans.
(ii) Steps required to be taken to address the issues or concer ns related to the incidences of wrong charging
including overcharging, especially in case of data packs, STVs, multiple tariff packs at a time, etc.
(iii) Use of IT tools for avoidance of error, audit, and testing of tariff plans. How such tools developed for
rigorous testing before launch of new tariff plans can also be used for audit purpose?
(iv) Dissemination of information related to terms and conditions and tariff details to subscribers in a timely
and appropriate manner.
(v) IT enabled measures to ensure consist ency of tariff information across different channels.
(vi) Changes in handling of billing complaints, its definition and frequency of Audit.
(vii) Retention of old records for special or peer Audit.
(viii) Regulation 6 C, 6D and 6E be retained or be altered/strengthened.
1.7 The comments/ counter -comments received from the stakeholders are available on TRAI website2 and
summary of the same is available in explanatory memorandum attached to the draft regulation3 on “Quality of
Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy) Regulations, 2023 ” issued on 24th February 2023
for consultation.
2. Consultation on Draft Regulation and Guidelines
2.1 Based on comments received from stakeholders on Consultation Paper on “ Review of The Quality of Service
(Code of Practice for Meter ing and Billing Accuracy) Regulations, 2006 ” issued on 1st September 2020,
discussion with stakeholders during Open House Discussion (OHD) held at New Delhi on 3rd March 2021,
additional comments received from stakeholders after OHD, subsequent discussions with various stakeholders
[experts, empaneled auditors, TSPs, Consumer Advocacy Groups(CAGs) etc.] and TRAI’s own analysis, draft
regulation and guidelines on “ Quality of Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy)
Regulations, 2023 ” were prepared. The draft regulation3 along with draft guidelines4 were released on the
TRAI website on 24th February 2023 inviting comments from the stakeholders by 17th March 2023. However,
on the request of various stakeholders, the Authority extended the la st date of submission of comments till
1st May 2023.
1 https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/CP_01092020.pdf
2 https://trai.gov.in/consultation -paper -review -quality -service -code -practice -metering -and-billing -accuracy -regulations -2
3 https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Draft_Regulation_24022023.pdf
4 https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Draft_Guidelines_2 4022023.pdf
2.2 In response to the above draft regulations, the Authority received comments from eight stakeholders (TSPs - 05,
Industry Association - 01, CAG - 01 and Individual - 01). An Open House Discussion (OHD) was a lso held with
the stakeholders, through virtual mode, on 7th July 2023. The Authority received additional comments from six
stakeholders (TSPs - 03 and CAG - 03).
2.3 During OHD, service providers raised certain issues related to technical explanations of the p rovisions in the
draft regulations, for which Authority directed to the concerned Division of TRAI to have discussions with the
technical teams of the service providers to explain the provisions and clarify the doubts. Accordingly,
discussions were also he ld with technical team/ experts of TSPs between 12th July 2023 to 18th July 2023 and
most of the points raised by the teams were suitably explained by the Division.
2.4 Based on the comments received from the stakeholders, discussions held during OHD, and subs equent
discussion with technical teams of the service providers and also interactions with empaneled auditors and with
TRAI’s own analysis, Quality of Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy)
Regulations, 2023 have been finalised.
2.5 Input received from stakeholders on draft regulation and guidelines during the consultation process, its analysis
and conclusion are presented in the following paras. To put forward facts in sequence, the input received from
various stakeholders on draft regula tion and guidelines are categorised as:
(i) General input; and
(ii) Specific input on the regulations.
3. General Input, its Analysis and Conclusion
3.1 Metering and Billing Regulations have become redundant and should be repealed
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) Many service pro viders suggested that the metering and billing audit was quite useful in its initial 8 -10
years but has now fulfilled its purpose and no more relevant in present scenario.
(ii) It was further suggested by the service providers that era of pulse -base charging ha s been replaced by a
large -scale adoption of flat charging in India. The flat tariffs have ushered in a new era of telecom
tariffing in the country, with data replacing the voice calls as the central focus point of most tariff plans.
The tariffs are now di fferentiated based on the data allocation under a recharge voucher and how that data
will be provisioned i.e., daily, or monthly basis and other variants thereof. The voice minutes and SMS
and any other benefits are generally bundled along with the data in most popular plans by all the service
providers. Further, most tariffs provided are either unlimited or sufficiently high bundled voice, SMS and
data, wherein the customer pays one -time fixed charges, thereby obviating the need for auditing of
charging me chanism.
(iii) Service providers also suggested that systems and processes implemented by the TSPs are ISO certified or
equivalent thereof. Various automated steps and processes are already in place, to ensure M&B accuracy
and to protect the interests of the con sumer. The present systems followed by the TSPs for M&B are not
only working well but have matured and become more robust over last two decades. Industry has been
doing well with the rigorous M&B benchmarks. In the last five years, there were no critical i nstance of
irregularity or non -compliance observed from the M&B audit. It has not come across any similar practices
in terms of M&B audits of a TSP anywhere internationally.
(iv) Hence, no further regulatory intervention is required by means of the proposed dra ft regulation and the
existing regulations on audit of metering and billing regulations should be repealed.
(v) However, almost all the CAGs, participating in OHD while highlighting the importance of the audit of
metering and billing system so as to protect t he interest of subscribers, supported the draft regulations and
guidelines and advocated for the continuance of the audit for maintaining transparency and fairness in the
system.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
(i) The purpose of laying down the Code of Practice for m etering and billing accuracy is to protect the
interest of subscribers of telecommunication services by:
a. bringing uniformity and transparency in the procedures being followed by service providers with
regard to metering and billing.
b. prescribing standards relating to accuracy of measurement and reliability of billing.
c. measuring the accuracy of billing provided by the Service Providers from time to time and to
compare them with the norms so as to assess the level of performance.
d. minimizing the incidences o f billing complaints.
(ii) It is observed that these objectives are quite relevant even in the present context of unlimited offers with
fair use plans, to protect the interest of subscribers of telecommunication services despite a major shift in
today’s teleco m market dynamics.
(iii) As per the reports submitted by the telecom service providers, a significant number of billing complaints
are still being registered by the subscribers. The details of billing related complaints received during four
quarters of FY 2022 -23 are as below:
Quarter Ending Total no. of billing related complaints received during the quarter
Mar'23 2,17,250
Dec'22 2,13,477
Sept'22 2,07,435
Jun'22 2,03,938
(iv) Some of the CAGs have also submitted that many subscribers may not book complaint due to
involvement of petty amount per subscribers. Though the amount may be very small for a single
subscriber but considering the huge subscribers base of more than 1.17 billion, overall impact due to
small amount of overcharge may be significant. For exampl e: Any wrong configuration of tariff offerings,
for example by the Access Service Providers, which causes an overcharging of as little as 10 paisa per
subscriber per month, may result into overcharging of more than Rs 140 crores from all subscribers in a
year. Here it may be noted that though the metering and billing systems may be robust, the tariff offerings
and charging process are configured manually.
(v) Previous years’ audit reports of metering and billing system of Access Service Providers have also
revealed instances of overcharging. During the FY 2017 -18 to 2019 -20, more than 4.6 million subscribers
were overcharged, and total overcharged amount was more than Rs 2.12 crores. As regards the comments
regarding similar practices of audit internationally, i t is to highlight that billing accuracy is one of the key
parameters for quality of service. There are more stringent consumer protection measures and relevant
audit provisions in place in many of the countries including the USA and in Europe.
(vi) One may arg ue that the number of subscribers affected, and the total overcharged amount is negligible in
comparison to subscriber base and gross revenue of the service providers. However, another view could
be that the conduct of regular audit of metering and billing system as a part of Regulatory compliance,
might have resulted in a smaller number of such instances.
(vii) In view of the above, the Authority firmly believes that audit of metering and billing system(s) is
necessary to ensure that service providers should mai ntain fairness and transparency in their
Metering and Billing System(s) to protect the interests of the subscribers.
3.2 Sampling methodology for CDR audit
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) One service provider submitted that there is no need for categorization or groupi ng of products, as this
would increase the number of products under different groups for Call Data Records (CDR) extraction. It
will only add complexity to the system and procedure and require more resources to be deployed by
TSPs to satisfy the auditors.
(ii) Another service provider submitted that c urrently most of the plans are in the nature of “all in one” plans
that provide unlimited voice with data component becoming the main differentiator. Further the data
component also has two flavours i.e., daily data bucket or long -time data buckets. Therefore, the criteria
for selection of plans for audit needs to be revised to reflect these changes and made representative. The
plans can be categorized into two groups of data buckets i.e. daily data bucket or long -time data buckets,
besides plans for international tariffs, instead of the proposed indicative list of buckets provided in the
draft Guidelines.
(iii) It was further submitted that instead of selection of five most popular tariff offerings in a particular
group, t wo plans with maximum subscribers in each of the above discussed two groups should be
selected for audit. This principle will reduce the audit burden on the TSPs as well as bring in required
Ease of Doing Business (EODB) measures without affecting the obje ctive.
(iv) Majority of the service providers submitted that considering deployment of centralized billing systems
and uniform tariffs across LSAs, there is no need to conduct audit in each LSA and requested that for
those tariffs which are common for all the L SAs/circles, audit may be done on a sample LSA of the
choice of auditor and observation related to the same may be made applicable for the remaining LSAs.
(v) One CAG suggested for inclusion of international calling packs in the audit to take suitable resolut ion as
frequency of such complaints is rather high.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
(i) Sampling methodology for CDR audit, as prescribed in the existing regulations provide selection of nine
prepaid plans {three existing, two newly launched during the quarter, two Sp ecial Tariff Vouchers (STVs)
and two data plans} and six postpaid plans (two existing, two newly launched during the quarter and two
data plans). The selection of plans is also based on the maximum number of subscribers. This
methodology had following conc erns considering the present days context:
Selection of postpaid and prepaid tariff offerings were not in accordance with their subscription.
Some of high values tariff offerings (like tariff offerings related to international roaming) are getting
excluded from the scope of audit due to their low subscriber base.
Sampling methodology was static, and it was not getting changed with changing market scenario.
(ii) In order to overcome the above concerns and to get a better representation of all the segments of the
subscriptions, a revised sampling methodology needs to be devised considering present days tariff
offerings and their subscription pattern. While devising revised sampling methodology, it shall also be
ensured that there should not be any increase in comp liance burden on service providers and at the same
time, coverage of the tariff offerings under audit is kept judicious to make it agile and representative.
Further, to have a dynamic sampling methodology keeping pace with change in tariff offerings in
emerging market dynamics, it is required that sampling methodology shall be delinked from the
regulation and issued separately and be reviewed from time to time.
(iii) The proposed grouping list of tariff offerings in the draft guidelines released is indicative on ly and final
grouping list for audit shall depend on the tariff offerings in a service area by the respective service
provider.
(iv) The apprehensions of the service providers with regard to the proposed sampling methodology were
clarified/ explained during th e post -OHD discussions held with the technical teams of each TSP.
(v) Accordingly, the Authority decided that sampling methodology shall be delinked from the
Regulation and shall be issued separately in the form of guidelines.
4. Specific input on Regulation(s), its Analysis and Conclusion
4.1 Short title, extent and commencement (Regulation 1)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) One service provider suggested that data packs/ services are offered under Access, VNO and ISP
authorization. Substantial number of internet subscribers are served by the ISP licensees as well. This
audit regulation covers audit of data services as well, and hence, this regulation should also be applicable
on ISP licensees as well, to maintain level playing field. Suitable exclusion can be given to ISP lic ensees
having miniscule subscribers considering materiality factor, just like provision of Telecommunication
Tariff Order 1999, providing exemption to ISPs having less than 10,000 subscribers from reporting
requirements. One of the CAGs also suggested that such audit should include both TSPs and ISPs.
(ii) Further, a few stakeholders mentioned that implementation of draft regulation will require huge changes
and upgradation in the TSP systems as well as setting up of processes with cross -functional teams.
Theref ore, the new audit scope should be made effective from the next financial year, starting after three
quarters from the date of notification of the new regulation. It is also submitted that if the additional layer
of self -evaluation is removed from the fina l regulation, in that case, we would like to submit that 2
quarters from the date of notification will be enough to implement the new regulation.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
(i) As per unified license (UL), access service means telecommunication service provided t o subscribers by
means of a telecommunication system for the conveyance of voice or non -voice messages through wired or
wireless telegraphy on the network of the Access Service Provider. Further, the licensee can also provide
Internet Telephony, Internet S ervices including IPTV, Broadband Services and triple play i.e., voice, video
and data . Accordingly, the regulation provides for audit of metering and billing system for access service
including internet services.
(ii) However, Internet Service Providers (ISPs ) providing only internet services, are not subject to the audit of
their metering and billing system under these regulations. At present, most of the ISPs have their
subscriber base which varies from a few hundred subscribers to few lakhs of subscribers. Further, the five
TSPs serve more than 97% of subscribers alone while the remaining 916 ISPs (as on 31st December 2022)
contribute for remaining less than 3% subscribers only. However, the performance of the ISPs’ billing
accuracy will continue to be monit ored under ‘ Quality of Service of Broadband Service Regulations 2006’
as amended time to time and if required the Authority may conduct separate consultation on this matter.
(iii) Considering these factors, the Authority is of the view that applicability of th ese regulations to ISPs
and VNO (Access Services) licensees will be decided at an appropriate time .
(iv) With regard to the effective date of applicability of the revised regulation, it is to be noted that the
Authority has already simplified various proces ses and compliance requirements through these
regulations. Therefore, there should not be any challenge on the part of TSPs to implement this regulation.
(v) Therefore, the Authority has decided that revised regulation shall be effective from 1st April 2024.
Accordingly, the audit of FY 2024 -25 shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of these
regulations.
4.2 Definitions (Regulation 2)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
Some of the stakeholders requested to modify the definition of ‘overcharging’, because a subsc riber can
opt for any VAS, OTT, content, or other additional service which is not part of tariff plan. Hence, such a
service, if chosen by subscriber, should not constitute overcharging.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
It is understood that tariff of some of the VAS, OTT, content, or other additional service may not be part
of a tariff plans offered by the service providers. However, such amount cannot be charged by the service
provider without the explicit consent of the subscriber.
Accordingly, the Authority ha s accepted the request of stakeholders to modify the definition of
overcharging.
4.3 Appointment of auditor for audit of metering and billing systems (Regulation 4)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) Some of the stakeholders observed that the auditor is appointed by the TS P after evaluation of the auditor
about their expertise of systems of TSP. The cost to perform this audit is also mutually negotiated between
the TSP and the auditor. Since there will not be any chance of mutual negotiation if the auditor is
appointed by T RAI, in which case, the cost of the same should be borne by the Authority.
(ii) It was further suggested that proviso regarding appointment of auditor by the Authority is not at all
needed since TRAI is already empowered under the TRAI Act and in the past TRAI has already carried
out special audits through the appointment of its Auditors.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
(i) The proviso regarding appointment of auditor by the Authority is not related to special audit instead it is
regarding appointment of the auditor by the Authority for regular audit of metering and billing system(s)
of TSPs. Considering the stakeholders submission, the Authority has decided to modify the proviso
that appointment of auditor by the Authority shall be at the cost of the Authority.
(ii) Regarding pr ovision for restriction on appointment of auditor, as suggested by some of the stakeholders, it
is clarified that the auditor should not have a direct business relationship with the service provider during
the last one year. Further, any auditor who is wor king as internal or statutory or cost auditor of service
provider shall not be eligible for appointment as auditor under the regulation.
(iii) Further, to ensure smooth and timely conduct of the audit of any financial year, the Authority has
decided that appoin tment of auditor by service provider shall be completed by 31st March of every
year .
(iv) One CAG has suggested that Consumer Coordination Council (CCC), a representative body of TRAI
registered CAGs, may be provided an opportunity to undertake such audits. In this regard it is clarified
that any entity who meets the eligibility conditions of empanelment as auditor, may apply for
empanelment and participate in the audit activity as per terms and conditions of the regulations.
4.4 Audit of metering and billing syste ms and Licensed Service Areas (Regulation 5)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) The service providers submitted that they are already conducting various internal audits of their systems
and processes at regular intervals. Therefore, the proposed system audit by auditor s is unnecessary and
this clause needs to be deleted.
(ii) The service providers also submitted that the proposed service area level audits are onerous and
unnecessary. Many processes in the metering and billing systems are configured at a central level for al l
the twenty -two LSAs thereby providing uniformity in configuration and applicability to consumers,
irrespective of LSA. As such, any problem with a specific pack/ plan/ customer communication in one
LSA, will reflect in all other twenty -one LSAs. The adop tion of such centralized billing systems and all
India uniform tariffs by service providers across all LSAs have further reduced the requirements of
extensive metering and billing audits for each LSA. Therefore, conducting audit in any one sample LSA
will provide sufficient case for identification of any such problem and there is absolutely no reason to
carry out duplicate audit activity in multiple or PAN India LSAs which will throw up same observation
only. It is also suggested that the present method of CDR -based M&B audit may be continued albeit based
on one sample LSA in a year.
(iii) Some of the service providers submitted that it may not be possible to conclude all these activities for all
the twenty -two licensed service areas, within a financial year. In case the Authority feels all these
activities must be completed within time, we strongly recommend that the metering and billing audit
should happen only for 25% LSAs (5 -6 LSAs) within one year, with all LSAs to be completed in a block
of four years.
(iv) It wa s also commented by the stakeholders that to define scope and process for audit of
centralized/distributed metering and billing system, with an explicit confirmation that the activities being
audited at centralized/distributed level would not be sought to be re -audited at LSA level. It is possible
that the system/processes for these CDR -based and non -CDR based activities may differ from operator to
operator, hence, TRAI may opt for laying down principles in place of hard coding the list. The auditor can
be asked to certify if a typical non -CDR based audit activity is being carried out through a central level
configuration/system/process.
(v) Some of the service providers submitted that considering multiple activities in initial two quarters, i.e.,
empanelment of auditor by TRAI, appointment of auditor by TSP, self -evaluation, centralized/ distributed
audit followed by LSA audit, the first two quarters will be challenging, and it will not be feasible to cover
even spread of LSAs in first two quarters. Therefore, t he choice of distribution of LSAs throughout the
year should be left to the discretion of TSPs and there should not be any requirement of uniform
distribution throughout the four quarters of a financial year.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
(i) The Authority observed that under previous regulation each LSA was being audited in every quarter,
whereas under new regulations it is proposed that every LSA will be audited only once in a financial year.
It shows that the Authority has already taken care of reducing the compli ance burden of service providers
by almost 75%. The request of service providers to further reduce it to only one LSA on sample basis may
not be appropriate at this moment, as billing of the chargeable components of the tariff and their system
configuratio ns are many times dependent on LSA level network/billing or charging elements and
therefore, to protect the interest of subscribers, the configuration of new tariff offerings are very much
needed to be checked as a part of audit. It is pertinent to mention that one of the service providers in the
comments submitted, has mentioned that “ the systemic errors are always possible and on detection of
such an error the best solution is to immediately refund the amount caused by error ”. The proposed audit
methodol ogy for LSA audit will enable early detection of such errors, including timely refund to
consumers and avoiding possible implication of financial disincentive. Service providers have also
mentioned that uniform plans are being offered on PAN India basis. H owever, service providers are free
to launch tariff offerings specific to a LSA as there is no restriction on such offers. Such LSA based tariff
offerings are being offered at present by some service providers. By adopting a sample audit of one LSA,
such t ariff offerings may be excluded from the purview of audit. Any regulatory framework needs to cater
for all possible scenarios rather than tuning it to meet present requirements.
(ii) With reference to the request of service providers regarding system audit, it is clarified that system audit
was also a part of the audit as per extant regulation and is very important to audit the accuracy of the
metering and billing system. Further, with the adoption of fixed or flat charging, wherein upon payment of
fixed charge subscriber gets certain amount of data, voice minutes and number of SMSs, it is more crucial
to audit the correct application of threshold limits mentioned under various usage policies [viz. Fair Usage
Policy (FUP) after exhaustion of the prescribed limit, honouring correct data limits without application of
early throttling etc.].
(iii) With respect to the submission of the service providers that all these activities cannot be completed for all
twenty -two LSAs in a financial year, it is to highlight that present ly almost all of these activities are being
conducted for all twenty -two LSAs four times in a year during audit process, as such, this argument does
not have any merit for consideration.
(iv) Regarding the segregation of activities proposed to be audited durin g system audit and LSA audit, it is
clarified that despite repeated opportunities given, none of the service provider has submitted suggestive
list of such distribution. However, the Authority is of the view that all the audit activities which can be
audit ed centrally and are common across LSAs should be audited centrally. Such activities shall not be
repeated during LSA audit.
(v) In view of the above, the Authority does not find any merit in revising the proposed audit
methodology. However, considering th e request of stakeholders, it is decided that the Licensed
Service Areas, for the purposes of audit, shall be evenly distributed throughout the four quarters of
a financial year as far as possible and in every quarter of a financial year, at least one Lice nsed
Service Area shall be audited. Further, considering that the auditor is to be appointed by 31st March
under the regulations, the system audit shall be completed by 30th June of the financial year for
which the audit is undertaken.
(c) Input of Stakeholde rs on self -evaluation of Billing System(s)
Most of the stakeholders suggested that self -evaluation is an onerous requirement that will add
unnecessary compliance burden on TSPs. When the intent of the new regulation is to simplify the process,
while making it more effective, a mandatory quarterly self -evaluation of billing systems seems excessive.
They further submitted that proposed three levels of audits in the draft regulations (self -audit, centralized
billing system audit, LSA wise audit) to replace a L SA based audit are excessive. As such, it would be a
huge additional activity which will add further complexity and challenges to the existing process and will
also shorten the already crunched timelines. It is also submitted that this activity would becom e sort of an
audit before audit, to some extent. Further, systems and processes implemented by the TSPs are ISO
certified or equivalent thereof. Stakeholders requested that this new requirement of self -evaluation is
onerous and not in line with the ease of doing business and trust, and hence this clause should be deleted.
(d) Analysis and Conclusion
Requirement of self -evaluation was proposed to provide an opportunity to the service providers, for
taking corrective actions, if any, before actual start of the audit. As per the draft regulation, any corrective
action taken during self -audit will not invite imposition of financial disincentive which is proposed in case
of detection of overcharging by auditor. However, considering the request of the service provid ers, the
Authority has decided to not to mandate the requirement of self -evaluation. Accordingly, all
provisions related to self -evaluation have been dropped.
(e) Input of Stakeholders on various timelines for providing information or data to the auditor
(i) Some service providers submitted that the timeline for providing raw CDR has been drastically reduced to
fifteen days from thirty days. This reduced timeline of 15 days is grossly insufficient considering the
enormous amount of CDRs and these CDRs are fetched from the central systems from the overall CDR
database. Most importantly, the timeline to fetch CDRs for 4 -5 LSAs will not be drastically lower than the
timeline to fetch CDRs for twenty -two LSAs. It would still take 80% of the time as was required to fetc h
CDRs for twenty -two LSAs. Therefore, the original timeline of thirty days must be retained for providing
CDRs to the auditors.
(ii) One stakeholder suggested that one week is too short a time to arrange all relevant information for the
auditor. A minimum of t hree weeks’ time is required to arrange for data.
(iii) It is also submitted that all the ‘Number of Days’ based timelines under Metering and Billing Audit
Regulation should also be changed to ‘Number of Working Days’ based with exclusion of the day of
providing of requirement by Auditor as well as day of submission of information to Auditor. Further, the
working day should be as per the working days of the office of respective TSP.
(iv) Few stakeholders suggested that regulation 5(7) is not at all needed since TRAI i s already empowered
under the TRAI Act and in the past TRAI has already carried out special audits through appointment of its
Auditors, hence, there is no specific empowerment required for the appointment of Auditors as mentioned
in this clause.
(f) Analysis a nd Conclusion
(i) The timeline for providing raw CDR was reduced to fifteen days considering that raw CDRs are to be
provided for a few LSAs only and that too for a month of the just previous quarter. However, considering
the request of stakeholders, the Autho rity has decided to revise the timeline for providing raw
CDRs to 30 days. However, the TSPs must ensure that the audit is completed within the specified time
frame.
(ii) Regarding request of stakeholders to change ‘Number of Days’ based timelines to ‘Number o f Working
Days’ based timelines, the Authority has not agreed for the same as timeline for providing raw CDRs
have been increased to 30 days.
(iii) With regard to the request of stakeholders for dropping regulation 5(7), the Authority is of the view that
there is no need to drop this provision from the regulation.
4.5 Action by service provider on the instances of overcharging observed by the auditor and reporting
thereof (Regulation 6)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) One stakeholder suggested that the refund timeline of thre e months as given in the draft regulation should
be increased to four months. The reason for the same is that the CDRs are live in the system of the TSPs
for the quarter for which observation was made by the auditor. However, for any period prior to the
quarter, the CDRs are usually archived and therefore, much more time is required to extract the relevant
CDRs, to run the query in the system, identify impacted customer base and process the refund.
(ii) Few stakeholders suggested that the draft regulation seeks (a) confirmation whether observation is correct
or not and additionally, (b) calculation of overcharged base/amount, within the first 15 -days which is way
stringent and not possible to meet. The activity of calculation of overcharged base/amount should be
merged with refund i.e., within the cumulative time of three months. Because, rectification of observation,
identifying affected subscribers and calculating overcharged amount need substantial time of six weeks
and cannot be completed within 15 -days.
(iii) One C AG suggested that in case of overcharging and to rectify the metering and billing system and lastly
to identify the affected subscribers, the procedure given in the proposed regulation is okay. In this context,
they wanted to add that if refund of money to subscribers and the reasons of that is published in
newspapers as well as TRAI website, it may increase the confidence of consumers towards concerned
TSPs and public at large may know about the transparency in the system. There should be some system in
which it can show the amount refunded to customers by way of overcharging or wrong charging and in
which plan. It may help in future policy making.
(iv) One CAG suggested that the data on overcharging in both cases - where a complaint has been lodged by a
consumer as well as where no complaint is lodged should be collected and published. This data should be
used for building a case for suitable compensation to consumers who have lodged a complaint which is
found to be genuine.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
As regard to s takeholder’s request for increasing the timeline for refund of overcharged amount, the same
has already been considered appropriately in these regulations by increasing it to three months from the
present two months prescribed in the extant regulations. However, considering the submissions of
stakeholders, the Authority has decided to combine the activity of identification of affected
subscribers and calculation of overcharged amount with the timeline of refund (three months).
About the suggestion of CAG to publish details of overcharging on TRAI website and newspapers,
the Authority has noted the input and will take appropriate measures as expedient to protect the
interest of consumers.
4.6 Submission of audit report and action taken report (Regulation 7)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) Many stakeholders suggested that the submission of Audit Report and Action Taken Reports to the
Authority should continue to be once a year as already applicable in the present regulation. It is further
added that submitting reports every quarter will require more time, staff, and infrastructure. The process
will become more complicated. It will be difficult to handle especially because of the enhanced size work.
(ii) One stakeholder suggested that the requirement to submit an action taken repor t to Authority, should be
applicable only in case of any actionable observations. The service provider should not be required to
submit a ‘NIL’ action taken report or to submit an action taken report on the observations, where the
action has already been t aken and intimated to auditor and/or has been captured in the audit report
submitted to TRAI.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
(i) In this regard, the Authority is of the view that submission of audit report immediately after completion of
the audit will enable service providers to identify the inconsistencies in their billing system(s) as well as
overcharged instances, if any. Further, this will also enable timely remedial action, if any, so that
recurrence of such error can be avoided in subsequent quarters, thereby p rotecting the interest of
subscribers.
(ii) Presently, the audit reports are submitted annually since all LSAs are required to be audited for all
quarters. However, the present regulation requires that each LSA is to be audited only in a single quarter
and the audit process of that LSA is concluded for the financial year. Accordingly, it is logical that the
audit report of the audited LSA is submitted after completion of the audit. There is no justification for
keeping the audit report pending for the end of th e year and delaying the remedial action thereon.
Further, it is felt that no significant amount of workload is likely to increase by submission of audit
report on quarterly basis.
(iii) Further, submission of ‘NIL’ action taken report does not require any appre ciable efforts and
therefore the Authority is of the opinion that action taken report may be submitted in all cases for
conclusion of audit for the financial year .
4.7 Consequences for failure of the service provider to submit audit report or action taken repo rt
(Regulation 8)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) Most of the service providers submitted that delays in submission of audit report or action taken report
may not be alone on part of the TSP at all times and this could also happen at auditor end due to the
complex n ature of the audit in terms of understanding of various processes and data sources/ systems,
selecting the tariff plans, providing sample cases for CDR rating, availability of preliminary observations
for further discussion and closure, etc. Therefore, it is recommended that the clause on provision for
imposing financial disincentive for delay in submission of audit report and action taken report by TSPs
should be deleted. If the Authority seeks to continue with the financial disincentive approach, we belie ve
that a reasonable graded approach within the present framework may be desirable.
(ii) One service provider submitted that financial disincentive requirements are excessive and should be toned
down. It was also submitted that there is a well -established juri sprudence that the penalty for procedural
delays should be reasonable, justifiable, and non -excessive and delay in submitting a report that has been
carried out by an empaneled auditor is a procedural delay and such penalty should not exceed Rs. 5000 per
licensee.
(iii) One service provider suggested that a graded approach to impose financial disincentive in case of delay in
submission of audit report and ATR i.e., Rs.5000/ - per week for first four weeks, Rs. 20,000/ - per week
for the next four weeks, Rs.50,000/ - per week for next four weeks and Rs.1 lakh per week thereafter,
subject to a maximum of 50 lakhs.
(iv) Another service provider suggested that M&B system is centralized system for TSPs, therefore, instead of
imposing penalty LSA wise, it should be a single pe nalty for an Operator. Any penalty imposed should be
symbolic. It should be in the tune of 10K per service provider.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
(i) The Authority observed that there is no change in proposed financial disincentive from that prescribed in
the extan t regulation except that a maximum limit of Rs 50 lakhs per report has been introduced. Ensuring
compliance of any regulation is also equally important. The Authority does not consider imposition of
financial disincentives as a source of revenue, instead i t is a tool for ensuring the compliance of the
regulations.
(ii) About imposition of single financial disincentives on a service provider instead of imposing LSA wise, the
Authority is of the view that there will be different timelines for submission of reports of different LSAs,
therefore this suggestion cannot be agreed to.
(iii) However, considering the submission of various stakeholders, the Authority has decided to revise the
financial disincentives from flat rate to graded FD based on quantum of delays . The am ount of
financial disincentive will increase with an increase in delay in submission of audit report or action taken
report.
4.8 Consequences for overcharging and failure of the service provider to refund the overcharged amounts to
subscribers (Regulation 9)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) One service provider submitted that systemic errors are always possible and on detection of such an error
the best solution is to immediately refund the amount caused by error. It is further submitted that 10% of
total overcharged amo unt for not being able to detect on its own is unprecedented and has no basis in law.
When the service provider is anyways required to pay all such overcharged amount either to customers or
to TRAIs fund, the financial disincentive should be proportionate. The biggest disincentive for a TSP is
the dissatisfaction of the customer and possibility of losing a customer and no additional disincentive is
required for a TSP to keep its billing systems accurate.
(ii) Another service provider submitted that refunding of the overcharged amount to impacted customers takes
time due to operational constraints, and there is no deliberate attempt to delay the refund to impacted
customers by TSPs. Further, it may not be possible for the service provider to identify the impacted
customer, calculation of applicable refund amount and processing the refunds to them within the existing
time period from the date of observation from the Auditor. Therefore, such financial disincentives need to
be reviewed and relaxed.
(iii) Majority of CAGs are of the view that these penal provisions should be strengthened further, as they are
necessary for ensuring compliance to the regulations.
(iv) One of the service providers submitted that the provisions for refund should be modified to reflect that the
TSP s hould make all possible endeavor to make refunds through digital modes.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
(i) The Authority observed that service providers on one side claim that they have ISO certified systems and
various steps and processes have been implemented to en sure metering and billing accuracy to protect the
interests of the consumer, whereas, on other side it is stated that systemic errors are always possible and
on detection of such an error the best solution is to immediately refund the amount caused by erro r.
In such situation when service provider themselves agree that elimination of errors in metering & billing is
not possible, some measures need to be put in place so that service providers remain cautious and
implement required checks and balances to en sure that metering and billing system are error free.
Considering these facts, the Authority decided to continue with the proposed provision of imposition
of financial disincentive of 10% of overcharged amount on detection of overcharging instances .
(ii) Howev er, the timeline for refund of overcharged amount has already been relaxed by the Authority from
two months to three months in this regulation. Further, considering the submissions of various
stakeholders, the Authority has reviewed and revised the provisi ons of financial disincentive with
emphasis on efforts to make refund of overcharged amount to subscribers .
(iii) The provision of financial disincentives is explained with following illustration:
Illustration:
Suppose on detection of instances of overcharging by an auditor, the service provider identified that Rs
1,00,000 has been overcharged from 1,000 subscribers. As per the provision of regulation 9(1), a financial
disincentive of Rs 10,000 (10% of the overcharged amount) shall be payable. Further, suppose t he
overcharged amount is refunded in various stages, then the applicable financial disincentive on delay in
refund of overcharged amount will be calculated as follows:
a) Total overcharged amount to be refunded = Rs.1,00,000/ -
b) Overcharged amount refunded with in 3 months of receipt of audit observations= say Rs.60,000/ -
. As per the regulations, there will be NIL FD applicable on this amount.
c) The remaining overcharged amount pending for refund at the end of 3 months= Rs.40,000/ -.
Therefore, the maximum amount of possible FD = Rs.40,000/ -
d) Overcharged amount refunded between 3 months to 6 months of receipt of audit observations=
say Rs.20,000/ - (out of Rs. 40,000/ - pending amount for refund at the end of 3 months)
e) Revised possible FD at the end of 6 months of recei pt of audit observations= Rs.40,000/ -[ FD
Amount as per step (c)] minus 75% of Rs.20,000/ - ( overcharged amount refunded between 3 to
6 month) = Rs. 25,000/ -
f) Overcharged amount refunded between 6 months to 12 months of receipt of audit observations=
say Rs .10,000/ - (out of Rs. 20,000/ - pending amount for refund at the end of 6 months)
g) Applicable FD at the end of 12 months of receipt of audit observations= Rs.25,000/ -[ FD
Amount as per step (e)] minus 50% of Rs.10,000/ - ( overcharged amount refunded between 6 to
12 month) = Rs. 20,000/ -
h) Overcharged amount pending for refund at the end of 12 months = Rs. 10,000/ - (Total Refunded
amount out of Rs. 1 lakh= Rs.60000/ -+ Rs. 20,000/ -+Rs.10,000/ -)
i) The balance overcharged amount of Rs 10,000 shall be deposited in TC EPF in accordance with
the regulations.
(iv) Regarding the request of making provision for mandating refunds through digital modes, the Authority is
of the opinion that service providers are free to adopt any methods to refund the overcharged amount
expeditiou sly, to the subscribers.
4.9 Consequences for submission of incomplete or false action taken report (Regulation 10)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) One stakeholder suggested that for incomplete ATR, the Authority should consider providing seven days'
time for TSP to cor rect the anomaly and file a revised ATR. No financial disincentive should be imposed
on a TSP if revised and a complete ATR is submitted within said seven days.
(ii) One of the stakeholders submitted that excessive penal provisions could prompt over -zealous po licing
instead of creating a deterrent. Therefore, we submit that financial disincentive requirements should be
simplified and capped at Rs. 5000 per TSPs.
(b) Analysis and Conclusion
The Authority observed that there is no change in the FD applicability provi sion with respect to the
extant regulation and hence no modification is required in the regulation.
4.10 Retention of records (Regulation 12)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) Most service providers suggested that the duration of retention of records should be limited to "one year"
instead of "two years". To preserve the records, the TSPs will have to expand/ increase their storage
capacity. It will need to incur additional costs for the same. Also, as the non -CDR based audit is a general
process audit, therefore, the pro vision of 'retention of records' should only apply to CDRs provided to the
auditor.
(ii) One service provider has mentioned that we understand that the period prescribed in the license will be the
upper limit for preserving the records. We request the Authorit y to clarify and submit that the record -
keeping requirements should not exceed 2 years in any case.
(b) Analysis and conclusion
Considering the submission made by the service providers, the Authority has decided that a service
provider shall preserve the reco rds pertaining to a financial year, required for compliance of these
regulations, including the records shared with auditor for one year after submission of all audit
reports of the financial year . However, in case of any dispute regarding audit observatio ns, the service
provider shall preserve all the relevant records till the resolution of dispute beyond the timeline s
prescribed in the regulations.
4.11 Information relating to tariffs (Clause 1 of Schedule)
(a) Input of Stakeholders
(i) One stakeholder submitted that while all this information is already being provided to the customers,
however, in line with the digitization and ever -increasing prevalence of eSIM in the country, we reiterate
that all this requirement should not be mandated to be provided physically to a customer through Start up
Kit or tariff enrolment form and the TSPs should be permitted to share all this information through SMS
on registered mobile number and/or e -mail. Therefore, we submit that suitable amendments be made in
Telecom Consumers Protec tion Regulations, 2012 and the Telecom Consumers Complaint Redressal
Regulations, 2012.
(ii) Another stakeholder submitted that in the era of digitization, it is prudent to shun away older and
primitive methods of providing welcome letters physically, rather va rious digital means should be
adopted to welcome customers. There are so many popular, efficient, and economic digital platforms like
SMS, USSD, IVRS, selfcare portals, helplines, websites, and Apps are available where information
relating to Tariffs and T erms & Conditions of the Tariff plans are being made available easily to the
customers. Hence, there should be no need for imposing an old "Welcome Letter".
(b) Analysis and Conclusions
The Authority observed that regarding issue of startup kits to new consume rs, no such mandate is
prescribed under the Quality of Service (Code of Practice for Metering and Billing Accuracy)
Regulations, 2023. However, the Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2012 provides for
provision of Start -up kit under regulation 3 whi ch inter -alia includes requirements to provide (i)
information about customer care number and general information number (ii) abridged version of telecom
consumer charter and (iii) information regarding deactivation due to non -usage. The issue raised by th e
service providers had already been reviewed by the Authority in recent past and no change is
envisaged at this stage.
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text