Competing MSO lacks liability for LCO defaults in the absence of privity of contract.

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO), provided cable signals and approximately 200 Set Top Boxes (STBs) to Respondent No. 1 (R1), a Local Cable Operator (LCO), under a Model Interconnect Agreement (MIA)

The Petitioner alleged that R1 defaulted on subscription payments and illegally migrated to Respondent No. 2 (R2), a competing MSO, by swapping 130 STBs without providing the mandatory 21-day notice required under Clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the TRAI Regulations

The Petitioner sought recovery of Rs. 86,636 in dues and the return of 130 STBs or their cost

R1 did not appear and the matter proceeded ex-parte against them, while R2 contested the petition, denying any privity of contract with the Petitioner

1. Whether R1 illegally migrated to R2 and swapped 130 STBs without clearing dues or returning hardware in contravention of TRAI Regulations

2. Whether R1 is liable to return 130 STBs or pay a cost of Rs. 1,62,500

3. Whether R2 is a necessary party or if the petition suffers from misjoinder

4. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to recover Rs. 86,636 with 18% interest

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 14 (A) (1) read with Section 14 (a) (ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act)

It applied Clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the TRAI Interconnect Regulations regarding mandatory notice periods for disconnection

On evidence, the Tribunal applied the principle of "preponderance of probabilities"

Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, citing Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh regarding the burden of proof remaining on the party asserting a fact

The Tribunal also applied its established practice of calculating STB compensation based on a 15% annual depreciation rate

The Tribunal found the Petitioner’s claims against R1 proved via an uncontroverted affidavit and the digital MIA captured on the Petitioner's portal

Since R1 failed to contest the proceedings, the ledger of outstanding dues and the possession of STBs were deemed admitted

Regarding hardware valuation, the Tribunal modified the Petitioner’s claim of Rs. 1,250 per STB, applying a 15% annual depreciation to arrive at a value of Rs. 1,062.50 per unit

As for R2, the Tribunal held that as a competing MSO, R2 shared no privity of contract with the Petitioner and could not be held liable for R1's defaults

Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that R2 was complicit in the illegal swapping of STBs

R1 was directed to pay Rs. 86,636 for subscription dues with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of the petition until payment

R1 was ordered to return 130 STBs with Viewing Cards (VCs) in working condition within two months; failing which, R1 must pay compensation of Rs. 1,38,125 (calculated at the depreciated value of Rs. 1,062.50 per STB) plus 9% simple interest

No relief was granted against R2