Implied Continuance of Services Post-Expiry of Agreement Creates Liability for Payment on Preponderance of Probabilities

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Respondent, a Broadcaster, on February 8, 2019.

The MOU concerned channel promotion services for "Sristi TV" in West Bengal for an annual fee of Rs. 28,80,000 plus taxes.

Although the MOU expired on January 31, 2020, the Petitioner contended that services continued based on a verbal request due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Petitioner sought recovery of Rs. 21,75,000 for outstanding dues and interest.

The Respondent admitted to dues of Rs. 4,90,960 existing at the time the MOU expired but denied any liability for the subsequent period, claiming the relationship ended by efflux of time.

1. Whether the Petition is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether the Respondent is liable to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 21,75,000 towards channel placement charges along with interest @ 24% p.a.?

3. To what other relief/reliefs is the Petitioner entitled?

Sections 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997, regarding the adjudication of disputes between service providers.

Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) to establish that the initial burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact.

Principle of "preponderance of probabilities" applicable to civil proceedings, citing M Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001).

Principle that channel placement agreements do not mandatorily require a written contract and can be inferred from the conduct of parties.

The Tribunal found the petition maintainable as both parties are "Telecom Service Providers" with an admitted commercial relationship.

The Tribunal noted that the financial records of both parties aligned regarding the debt up to January 30, 2020.

To prove the post-MOU dues, the Petitioner submitted a Section 65B-compliant Statement of Account and uncontroverted affidavit evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the Respondent failed to cross-examine the Petitioner’s witness or provide evidence to rebut the emails and invoices sent during the lockdown period.

Applying the "preponderance of probabilities," the Tribunal inferred that the relationship continued post-MOU because the Respondent did not protest the continued placement of its channel and had failed to clear even the undisputed pre-existing arrears.

The Respondent was ordered to pay Rs. 21,75,000 plus 9% interest pendente lite and future interest within two months.