Contractual liability for channel placement charges is enforceable upon evidentiary proof of service and payment default.

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO), filed a petition under Sections 14A(1) and 14(a)(ii) of the TRAI Act, 1997, seeking recovery of Rs. 1,92,23,565 in unpaid placement charges from the Respondent broadcaster

Between 2014 and 2017, the parties entered into several Channel Placement Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) for the distribution of the "Janasri News" channel in Karnataka

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent became a chronic defaulter despite regular invoices and reminders

Although the Respondent once transferred Rs. 1.10 Crores, the Petitioner was forced to return this amount to an investigating authority following a criminal case against the Respondent

The Respondent initially filed a reply claiming the channel was not operational due to financial constraints and that the Petitioner failed to fulfill its obligations, but subsequently failed to appear for the proceedings, leading the Tribunal to proceed ex-parte

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the claimed amount along with interest from the Respondent?

2. Whether the parties complied with the terms and conditions of the MoUs and Agreements executed between them?

The Tribunal applied the principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically Section 102 regarding the burden of proof, noting that the initial onus lies on the party asserting a fact

It relied on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh to establish that the burden of proof on pleadings never shifts, though the onus of proof may shift during the evaluation of evidence

Following State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co., the Tribunal emphasized that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own evidence rather than the weakness of the defendant

Furthermore, the standard of proof applied was the "preponderance of probabilities," as established in M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh

The Tribunal found that the Petitioner successfully discharged its burden of proof by producing uncontroverted evidence, including the placement agreements (Exhibits PW 1/1 to PW 1/3), invoices (Exhibit PW 1/4), and a Statement of Account (Exhibit PW 1/5) supported by a Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent admitted to the existence of the relationship and the MoUs in its reply but failed to produce any evidence (an "IOTA of evidence") to support its claims of non-compliance by the Petitioner or its own financial inability

Since the Respondent failed to contest the matter after the framing of issues, the Petitioner’s evidence remained unchallenged

Regarding interest, the Tribunal deviated from the Petitioner’s claim of 18%, opting instead for its standard practice of awarding 9% simple interest based on the prevailing commercial scenario

The Respondent was directed to pay a principal sum of Rs. 1,92,23,565 along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum calculated from 31.03.2017 until the actual date of payment

The Respondent was ordered to deposit the said amount with the Tribunal within two months