Please go through the facts below:
X, an illiterate farmer purchases DTH connection from company Y. Company Y had promised that the validity of services would be for a period of one year. but subsequently, Y disconnects the services at 10th month of subscripttion (2 months before the lapse of validity period) when asked, Y gives the following explanation:
1. that the subscripttion charges of some channels have gone up, hence, we have to disconnect the connection before 2 months
2. We had intimated the consumer about the same within 2 months, using the mailbox viewable on the television screen.
3. Since the terms of service at the time of purchase included a clause which says that Y is entitled to charge additional amount in case the channels increase their subscripttion fee, Y has righ to decrease the validity to that extent.
X claims that
- He has paid the full amount of money for annual subscripttion, hence he had purchased the services for the whole 1 year period in advance, and any disconnection before the lapse of such period will be a deficiency of service under consumer protection Act.
- Hence the raise in subscripttion charges is an important issue, the service provider should inform the consumer by reasonable notice of change in tariff (there is no sufficient notice, a common man cannot be expect to go to the mailbox of DTH and check mail)
- In addition, the service providers telephone lines have not been maintained by him in a proper condition, and most of the lines are always busy. Service provider had also advertised in several media that he would provide 1 year's validity for the said amount. (a promise made without an intention of performing it)
- Decreasing the validity against the original subscripttion is purely an act of consumer's exploitation, and the terms mentioned in sales agreement is entirely unreasonable, as it gives the service provider, an arbitrary right to modify the tariff even after the purchase of tariff by the customer
Learned advocates, please respond. kindly substantiate your answer with some precedent or law, mere yes or no is not an answer that can be expected from lawyers, as even a layman can say that.
(also don't tell me to approach District Forum, i know that this remedy is available to anybody)