Tata Sky sued for misleading consumers.

Adhikaar- the rights path, an NGO which stands for Consumer rights has sued Tata sky for misrepresentation in a petition filed with TDSAT today. It has alleged that Tata Sky using its yearly packages represents to the consumers to provide services (Channels) for the whole period even though it does not have the legal right to do so since most of the Agreements with broadcasters come to an end due to efflux of time and this position is concealed by them. Also, it is represented to the consumers that during the duration of the yearly/half yearly packs any new channel whether SD or HD will be given free of cost but in the present case the STAR World Premiere HD has been introduced at a monthly rent of Rs 60 under the pretext of starting new service under the so called Specials category and stating that they do not fall under those channels that are provided free of cost to subscribers having packs for which advance payments have been made by them. The Annual Rental schemes of Tata Sky promises consumers uninterrupted access to channels for the whole year against a prepaid advanced fee of Rs 5500 even though they do not have valid arrangements with broadcasters for the same period. If Tata Sky and the broadcaster fail to renew the arrangement, the channel goes off air depriving consumers of the channels that were promised to them at the time of subscription. Due to the act of Tata Sky, the consumers will be left with no option but to change their service provider in order to receive his preferred channels and hence will have to pay an additional Rs 4000 for a Set Top box and rentals since the said set top boxes do not have the option of interoperability. Assuming there are 3 million subscribers who subscribe to an annual plan, Tata Sky has collected advance payment to the tune of Rs 1650 Crores misrepresenting to the consumers on the availability of channels through their subscription period. This could well be the tip of the iceberg, with more channels failing to renew agreements with Tata Sky and the service provider getting the channels off air ensuring a complete loss to the consumers by unilaterally deactivating the said channels from its platform. The latest case being NEO Sports and NEO Prime being deactivated from 12th October 2013. A subscriber chooses a service provider based on its services i.e. Channels in the case of a DTH operator and not vice versa. Promising and not providing a channel results in customer injustice and tantamounts to cheating. Tata Sky thus misrepresents to the consumer its arrangements with broadcasters at the time of subscription. In the case of niche channels like Sports Channels which are event based and which do not have a true substitute it is actually forcing the consumers to either miss their events or change the service provider. Not having a channel makes the service useless and the money paid is wasted

If the service provider relies on the clause that they are free to change the channels and give discount, it will lead to huge disservice to the consumers and thereby benefiting the Service provider by showing channels other than the ones which the consumers had chosen at the time of subscribing to it and then quickly replacing them with cheap ones As per Regulations of TRAI pertaining to the Direct to Home Broadcasting Services (Standards of Quality of Services and Redressal of Grievances) (Amended) Regulations, 2009 Regulation 9A clearly states No change in composition of a subscription package during first six months of enrolment or during the period of validity of subscription paid in advance

If the service provider is choosing to shut down/ remove a channel then they must Ensure that channels are provided for the period of service the consumer has subscribed Return to subscribers the entire money for the STB & other installations charges for the consumer to buy a new service to see the channel of their choice and not penalize the consumer for the fault/ action of the service provider. Or else for every channel that he watches which is worth Rs 40/ per month, if it is removed by the service provider, the consumers will have to buy STB/ installations cost for an amount of Rs 4000/ to watch his channel worth Rs 40/-.

Consumers cannot be penalized for choosing a service provider, who promised wrongly to show the channels of consumers choice till the period of the service In this case, service provider cannot change the packs for minimum 6 months as stipulated, since the decision to not take the channel is also theirs and the broadcaster has not deprived them of the content. The original idea of the regulator for such cap was to ensure that the operator doesnt abuse its power to the detriment of its customers. So what good is the 6 months lock in, if the service provider bring out the packs and also changes it at its own discretion

Clause (2) R. 9 A further states that If any particular channel included in a subscription package which has been subscribed to by a Direct to home subscriber subsequently becomes unavailable on the direct to home service of the Direct to home operator on its platform, the Direct to Home Operator

shall reduce the subscription charges for such subscription package on a proportionate basis from the date of disconnection of the channel from the Direct to home service of the Direct to home operator till the expiry of a period of six months from the date of enrolment of that subscriber, or till the expiry of the contracted period of subscription for which the amount of subscription has been paid in advance Provided that, instead of proportionate reducing the subscription charges for such subscription package on account of non-availability of such channels, the direct to home operator may at its discretion, introduce in such subscription package another channel of the same genre and language as the channel.. TATA Sky is clearly using the above clause in its favour, a consumer who opts for a sports channel just because of a particular match that is shown on its channel, invests huge amount on the set top box and if he is refunded only with a deducted amount for the remaining period, the consumer would certainly be in a loss as he will not be able to watch his matches and secondly if he opts for another DTH provider he will again have to invest a usage amount for the set top box and thereafter for the subscription amount. Further, Tata Sky is also in violation of Regulation 9B as under the said Regulations the DTH Operator has to give a 15 day prior notice before changing the composition of any package. No such notice has been given in the present case by Tata Sky even though w.e.f. 12.10.2013 it is going to discontinue the signals Neo Channels. The prayer sought vide the petition is:

A. Pass an order of permanent injunction against Tata Sky from discontinuing the distribution of Neo channels on its DTH Platform during the tenure of the various Mega Packs ; B. Pass an Order of mandatory injunction directing Tata Sky to provide the Star World Premiere HD channel to its Mega package subscribers free of cost; C. Direct Tata Sky to refund the entire amount for set top box and installation charges to consumers who do not want to avail the services of the Opposite Party alongwith the proportionate amount that the consumers may have paid in advance towards any package of the Opposite Party within seven (7) days by way of cheque; D. Direct Tata Sky to pay a certain sum to the Complainant as damages. To read the complete petition visit http://www.scribd.com/doc/175043462

Disclaimer: This is an analysis of the petition filed by Adhikar in TDSAT on Tata Skys policies and on the arguments held in the matter in TDSAT . The author is an independent individual and is providing a brief analysis of the same.