The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of cable operators to adhere to TRAI's prescribed tariff, publicize subscription rates, and provide reasons for periodic price increases.

ORDER

R.K. Patra, President - In this complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainants allege that the opposite party No. 1 has been charging excess price arbitrarily to provide TV cable service to the subscribers contrary to and in contravention of tariff prescribed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI in brief). According to the complainants, this amounts to unfair trade practice.

2. Complainant No. 1 is a registered voluntary organisation. Complainants 2 to 5 are individual consumers.

Apprehending that the contesting opposite party No. 1 might take objection to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that more than one consumer are complainants, a petition was filed on their behalf under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking permission to pursue the complaint on behalf of numerous consumers of cable service. By order dated 3.1.2005 this Commission permitted the complainants to publish required notice. The complainants accordingly got the notice published in the newspaper. Pursuant to the publication the Orissa Jana Surakshya Mancha applied for being impleaded as a party to the complaint. Its prayer has been allowed.

3. The Consumer Protection Act has been enacted to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers. The rigours and restrictions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be extended to the proceedings under the Act. Its very purpose would be frustrated if the technicality is pressed into service in adjudicating a complaint. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the matter holding that the joint complaint is maintainable.

4. The main grievance of the complainants is that the opposite party No. 1 who is a service provider has been raising service charges at frequent intervals arbitrarily and whimsically. It is also alleged that the programmes transmitted by it through its cable service are not clear and the transmission remains closed for a long period. The complainants assert that the TRAI has fixed tariff at Rs. 72 plus local taxes and the opposite party No. 1 in disregard of the TRAI's decision has been charging at Rs. 231 per month from January 2004.

5. The opposite party No. 1 has filed written version denying the allegation of arbitrary/ excess price for providing cable TV service to the customers. Its specific case is that the tariff of Rs. 72 fixed by the TRAI is applicable only to the areas where the Conditional Access System (CAS) is in operation and Orissa being not a CAS area the tariff of Rs. 72 is not applicable to Orissa. It claims that the price fixed by it is based on multifactors like customer based, number of channels shown to the subscribers, variable overhead expenses, statutory charges, etc.

6. Counter has also been filed on behalf of the TRAI saying inter alia that the price ceiling of Rs. 72 per month is only applicable to notified CAS areas and no part of the State of Orissa is notified as such.

7. One Samarendra Kumar Mohanty, Manager - Legal of opposite party No. 1 has filed affidavit which was sworn by him on 26.9.2005. He has stated that opposite party No. l charges Rs. 206.40 for cable TV network from a subscriber in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar, Rs. 155 in Paradeep (PPT area), Rs. 99 in Puri and Rs. 142 in Rourkela besides service tax and electrical inspection fees. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit he has stated that pricing in different area depends upon the number of customers, number of channels shown to the subscribers, variable overhead expenses, statutory charges, etc. In Cuttack and Bhubaneswar 61 channels are provided to consumers whereas in Paradeep, Puri and Rourkela 60, 50, and 55 channels respectively are shown. He also says in the said affidavit that in supersession of the prevailing rate/notification dated 26.12.2003, the TRAI vide notification dated 1.12.2004 has permitted the cable operators for a hike of 7% over and above the prevailing rate, but the opposite party No. 1 has not i