A Seven-Year Cable Interconnection Lock-In Cannot Override the Regulatory One-Year Agreement Term.

The petitioner, a multi-system operator (MSO), and the respondent, a local cable operator (LCO), executed an Interconnect Agreement on 18 March 2016.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent migrated to another MSO in December 2016, prematurely ending the arrangement, and sought ₹7,72,500 as compensation for breach of a seven-year lock-in period, together with the return of 103 set-top boxes (STBs) or their value of ₹1,54,500.

The respondent disputed the lock-in clause and the STB claim, and contended that the 2016 Interconnection Regulations required a one-year agreement and that the STBs had been purchased outright.

The Tribunal framed six issues, including the agreement’s validity and regulatory compliance, entitlement to STBs or compensation, and interest.

Whether the Interconnect Agreement dated 18 March 2016 was valid, and whether its seven-year lock-in term was consistent with the Interconnection Regulations.

Whether the petitioner proved its entitlement to the return or value of the claimed STBs and accessories.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for premature delinking during the claimed seven-year lock-in period.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest and, if so, at what rate.

Section 14, read with Section 14A, of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, provided the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Tribunal applied the Seventh Amendment to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations, 2016, which required interconnection arrangements to conform to the Model or Standard Interconnect Agreement framework and provided for one-year terms with renewal.

It also applied the civil standard of proof by preponderance of probabilities and the principle that the initial burden rests on the party asserting a fact, relying on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1971, and other authorities.

Under the agreement, the petitioner retained ownership of STBs supplied to the respondent, which were returnable or compensable if lost or damaged.

The Tribunal further held that a claim for damages for the unexpired lock-in period could not succeed absent proved loss or damage.

The Tribunal found the agreement valid because the parties admitted its execution, but held that the seven-year lock-in could not operate contrary to the regulatory framework: the agreement remained effective only up to the one-year period, and the respondent’s migration occurred before that period expired.

On the STB claim, the petitioner proved delivery of 98 boxes through an acknowledgement, but not the additional five claimed; the respondent’s assertion of outright purchase was unsupported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal therefore awarded the assessed value of the 98 STBs and accessories, rather than ordering their return.

Because the respondent migrated within the relevant one-year period and the petitioner did not prove loss or damage attributable to premature delinking, the claim for ₹7,72,500 in lock-in compensation was rejected.

Interest at 9% per annum was considered reasonable, rather than the 18% claimed.

The respondent was ordered to deposit ₹1,17,600 for 98 STBs and their accessories, with simple interest at 9% per annum from 8 February 2017 until payment, within two months.

The claim for ₹7,72,500 in premature-delinking compensation was rejected; the petitioner’s claims for 103 STBs and 18% interest were not granted.