LCO is liable for equipment restitution or depreciated value upon unauthorized migration to a competing MSO.

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO), entered into an interconnect agreement with Respondent No. 1 (R-1), a Local Cable Operator (LCO), to provide television signals and 155 Set Top Boxes (STBs) for subscribers

The agreement was valid from 25.07.2020 to 31.03.2025.

The Petitioner alleged that R-1 violated the Interconnect Regulations and the agreement by illegally swapping these STBs with Respondent No. 2 (R-2), a competing MSO, starting in November 2020, without paying outstanding invoices or returning the STBs

While R-1 remained ex-parte despite service, R-2 contested the petition, denying illegal swapping and asserting a lack of privity of contract between itself and the Petitioner

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

2. Whether Respondent No. 1 illegally migrated to Respondent No. 2 in violation of Interconnected Regulations and the terms of the Agreement?

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to recovery of 155 STBs and viewing cards in good working condition or, alternatively, the depreciated cost of the STBs?

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

The Tribunal applied Section 14 and 14A(1) of the TRAI Act, 1997, regarding the adjudication of disputes between service providers

It relied on the civil standard of the "preponderance of probabilities" as the touchstone for decision-making, citing M Krishnan v. Vijay Singh

Regarding the burden of proof, the Tribunal cited Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Supreme Court decisions in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (onus lies on the party asserting a fact) and Raghvamma v. A Cherry Chamma (distinction between the constant burden of proof and the shifting onus of proof)

It further noted the principle from State of JK v. Hindustan Forest Co. that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own evidence rather than the weakness of the defendant

The Tribunal found the petition maintainable against R-1 but acknowledged the established legal proposition that no right to sue exists against a competing MSO (R-2) for the misconduct of an LCO where there is no privity of contract

On the merits, the Petitioner provided evidence via an uncontroverted affidavit stating that R-1 swapped the STBs without the mandatory three-week notice required by Interconnect Regulations and failed to clear dues

Since R-1 did not appear or file a reply, the Petitioner's evidence regarding the illegal migration and the specific count of 155 unreturned STBs remained rebutted

The Tribunal accepted the Petitioner's calculation of the depreciated value of the STBs at Rs. 672 per unit, totaling Rs. 1,04,160, as R-1 failed to challenge these figures

The Tribunal directed R-1 to return 155 STBs and viewing cards in good working condition within two months

In default of return, R-1 is ordered to pay the depreciated cost of Rs. 1,04,160 (calculated at Rs. 672 per STB)

Additionally, R-1 is liable to pay simple interest at 9% per annum, pendente lite and future, until the actual date of payment