LCO held liable for subscription dues and STB return; relief denied against competing MSO absent privity.

The Petitioner, a Multi System Operator (MSO), entered into an Interconnect Agreement with Respondent No. 1, a Local Cable Operator (LCO), for the retransmission of cable signals

Under the agreement, the Petitioner issued 2308 Set Top Boxes (STBs) to Respondent No. 1 for installation at subscribers' premises

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 failed to pay outstanding subscription charges amounting to Rs. 2,53,074.09 and activation charges of Rs. 5,000

Furthermore, the Petitioner claimed Respondent No. 1 conspired with Respondent No. 2 (a competing MSO) to swap the Petitioner’s STBs

Despite a demand notice dated February 17, 2022, the Respondents failed to comply

Although Respondents initially appeared, they failed to file a reply, and the matter proceeded ex-parte

1. Whether Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay the outstanding subscription and activation charges and return the issued STBs or their equivalent value.

2. Whether any liability can be fastened upon Respondent No. 2 (the competing MSO) in the absence of a privity of contract.

The Tribunal applied Sections 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, which govern dispute resolution for broadcasting services

Regarding the burden of proof, the Tribunal relied on Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" applicable to civil proceedings

Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) regarding the initial onus of proof on the person asserting a fact

State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co. (2006), establishing that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own evidence

Additionally, the Tribunal applied the doctrine of privity of contract, holding that no relief can be granted against a third party (competing MSO) with whom the Petitioner has no contractual relationship

The Tribunal noted that the Petitioner’s claims were supported by an uncontroverted affidavit of evidence and documentary exhibits, including the Interconnect Agreement and statements of account

Since the Respondents failed to file a reply or produce rebutting evidence, the Tribunal accepted the Petitioner’s averments based on the preponderance of probabilities

Regarding Respondent No. 2, the Tribunal observed that there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner MSO and the competing MSO; therefore, the misconduct of the LCO (Respondent No. 1) could not justify a decree against the competing MSO

The Tribunal determined that 9% simple interest per annum was appropriate given the current fiscal scenario

Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 2,53,074.09 for subscription charges and Rs. 5,000 for activation charges

Respondent No. 1 was further ordered to return 2308 STBs with accessories in good working condition within two months, failing which it must pay the depreciated value of Rs. 46,16,000

Simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded pendente lite and future from the date of filing until the date of actual payment