Interconnection regulations supersede contractual seven-year lock-ins, defeating premature-delinking compensation claims.

The Petitioner, Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd., an MSO, and the Respondent, proprietor of M/s World View and an LCO, executed an Interconnect Agreement dated 28 October 2015. The agreement contained a special revenue-sharing arrangement and allegedly provided for a seven-year lock-in period. It also stated that the STBs and related accessories supplied to the Respondent remained the Petitioner’s property and were returnable upon termination

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent migrated to another MSO in June 2016 without notice, failed to clear dues, and did not return 419 SD STBs and 12 HD STBs. It claimed ₹14,05,392 as compensation for premature delinking during the seven-year lock-in period and ₹6,64,500, alternatively, for the STBs and accessories

The Respondent denied liability, asserted that the STBs had been purchased outright, disputed the number of STBs, and contended that the agreement’s seven-year lock-in clause was inconsistent with the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (Seventh Amendment) Regulations, 2016, which required migration to the MIA/SIA framework with a one-year tenure

The Tribunal framed six issues concerning the validity and regulatory compliance of the agreement, the Petitioner’s entitlement to the STBs or their value, compensation for premature delinking, interest, and the overall relief claimed.

Evidence was filed by both parties through affidavits

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the reliefs claimed in the Petition

Whether the Interconnect Agreement dated 28 October 2015 was valid and enforceable

Whether the agreement, particularly its seven-year lock-in provision, violated the applicable Interconnection Regulations and, if so, with what effect

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to recover the STBs and accessories or their monetary value

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to ₹14,05,392 as compensation for premature delinking during the lock-in period

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to interest and, if so, at what rate and from which date

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997

It applied the 2012 Interconnection Regulations governing the MSO–LCO relationship and the Seventh Amendment Regulations, 2016, which required the parties to adopt the Model Interconnect Agreement or Standard Interconnect Agreement and contemplated a one-year agreement tenure with renewal

The Tribunal treated the admitted signatures and execution of the written agreement as sufficient to require interpretation according to its expressed terms, subject to overriding regulatory requirements

On proof, it relied on the principles that the initial burden lies on the party asserting a fact, that the burden of proof does not shift, while the evidentiary onus may shift during trial, as stated in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1971; Premlata v. Arhant Kumar Jain, AIR 1976 SC 626; Lakshman v. Venkateswarloo, AIR 1949 PC 278; State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co., (2006) 12 SCC 198; and Raghvamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136

The Tribunal applied the civil standard of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities

It also relied on the contractual clauses vesting ownership of the STBs and accessories in the Petitioner and requiring their return or compensation for loss or damage

The Tribunal held that the Respondent’s admitted execution of the Interconnect Agreement made the agreement a valid instrument, notwithstanding that the Respondent disputed its contents

However, the agreement was executed before the Seventh Amendment Regulations came into force on 15 March 2016. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the agreement could operate only until the regulatory framework required migration or renewal under the MIA/SIA structure; the seven-year lock-in could not continue contrary to the Regulations

Since the alleged migration occurred in June 2016, after the regulatory change, the Petitioner could not establish a continuing contractual entitlement to compensation for the unexpired seven-year period. The claim of ₹14,05,392 was therefore rejected for want of a legally enforceable lock-in entitlement and proof of actual loss

As to the STBs, the Tribunal found documentary proof of only 199 STBs, notwithstanding the Petitioner’s claim concerning 431 units. The acknowledgment and related records specifically established delivery of 199 STBs

The contractual terms placed ownership in the Petitioner and required return of the equipment. The Respondent’s assertion of outright purchase was unsupported by documentary evidence. Applying the admitted approximate purchase value and allowing for depreciation and wear and tear, the Tribunal assessed the value at ₹1,200 per STB, resulting in ₹2,38,800 for 199 STBs and their accessories

Interest was reduced from the claimed 18% to 9% per annum as a reasonable rate, running from the date of the demand notice

The Tribunal held that the Interconnect Agreement was valid when executed, but the seven-year lock-in provision ceased to be enforceable after the regulatory changes effective from 15 March 2016 and could not support the claimed compensation of ₹14,05,392

The Respondent was directed to deposit ₹2,38,800, representing the assessed value of 199 STBs together with their viewing cards, remote controls, AV cords, and other accessories, with simple interest at 9% per annum from 8 February 2017 until payment

The claim for compensation for premature delinking and the claim concerning the additional unproved STBs were not granted