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)

I write this for your remark: 

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)

You know everything Mr. Pradeep - Here ordinary ppl seek our advice, we professionals exchange our views and suggestions but not a detailed discussion on a whole case and supply of support material -  You are charging your client for this only ~ if you need the same help contact through PM and offer fees if any of our professional brethern is interested he will guide and assist you.  No offence - be professional.

sorry, as i told you, the client  is a poor farmer, who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer, & i am not a practicing lawyer as of now, but i am sure he has a genuine case, and it's not only him, lakhs of consumers who availed the services of this provider might get benefitted from this, (and the lawyers too, if they decide to sue their service provider) 

I know that lawyers charge for the professional advice they render, at the same time they also have a social responsibility to provide legal aid to the poor and needy.  

Whether the instant act of the DTH Service provider falls within the periphery of all important 'deficiency of service' or not- the answer lies in one simple question as to whether at the time of purchasing the service it was stipulated that the tariffs are subject to changes from time to time.

If the tariffs can be changed in the meantime then surely the service provider is discharged of any liability of deficiency of service . especially when it has intimated the purchaser by mail. The illiteracy of the customer unfortunately would be of no help.

sorry, a small correction in the above post:

In 3rd para, Phrase "can the channel arbirtarily decrease the validity" ,

please read it as "can the Provider arbirtarily decrease the validity"

Ok , then you should try your luck and emphasis should not only be on deficiency of service but also on unfair trade practice. If in your case you could show that the service provider did not pass the benefit of decrease or waiver of any charger of the Channels then you have a very good merit. Go AHEAD.

thank you Barmanji