LCO liable for dues and equipment; third-party MSO protected by lack of privity of contract.

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 television channels

Under this agreement, 463 Set Top Boxes (STBs), belonging to the Petitioner, were issued 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. 97,931.95 and, in conspiracy with Respondent No. 2 (a competing MSO), swapped the Petitioner's STBs

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

Although the Respondents initially appeared, they failed to file a reply or continue appearance, leading the Tribunal to proceed ex-parte

The Petitioner sought a decree for the restoration of the STBs or payment of their value (Rs. 9,26,000) and the recovery of subscription dues

1. Whether Respondent No. 1 is liable for the outstanding subscription dues and the return or reimbursement of the 463 STBs issued by the Petitioner.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any relief against Respondent No. 2 (the competing MSO) in the absence of a contractual relationship.

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

It applied the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" applicable to civil proceedings

Regarding the burden of proof, the Tribunal relied on Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Supreme Court rulings in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (AIR 2006 SC 1971) and Raghvamma v. A. Cherry Chamma (AIR 1964 SC 136), which establish that the initial burden to prove a fact lies on the party asserting it and never shifts, though the onus of proof may shift during evaluation

it applied the doctrine of "privity of contract," holding that no liability can be fastened upon a third party (competing MSO) absent a contractual link

The Tribunal noted that the Petitioner produced the Interconnect Agreement, invoices, and a statement of account to substantiate its claims

Since the Respondents failed to file a rebuttal or contest the evidence, the Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted affidavit of the Petitioner's witness as sufficient proof under the standard of 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

Consequently, following established precedent, the Petitioner was found ineligible for relief against Respondent No. 2 for the misconduct or defiance of the LCO (Respondent No. 1)

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

Respondent No. 1 was directed to: (i) pay Rs. 97,931.95 towards subscription charges; (ii) return 463 STBs with accessories in working condition within two months, or in default, pay their depreciated value of Rs. 9,26,000; and (iii) pay simple interest at 9% per annum pendente lite and future from the date of filing until the actual date of payment

No relief was granted against Respondent No. 2