LCO Liable for Outstanding Dues and Equipment Costs Following Unlawful Migration Between MSOs

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO) formerly known as IndusInd Media and Communications Ltd., entered into a DAS Interconnect Agreement with Respondent No. 1 (a Local Cable Operator/LCO) on 01.01.2014

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 migrated to Respondent No. 2 (a competing MSO) in February 2015 without providing the mandatory 21-day notice under the Interconnection Regulations or clearing outstanding dues

The Petitioner sought recovery of Rs. 8,82,559/- in subscription fees and the cost of 584 Set Top Boxes (STBs)

During proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner oversaw the return of 580 STBs, leaving 4 STBs unaccounted for

Respondent No. 1 initially contested the claims, alleging illegal disconnection and claiming STBs were redundant, but later failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte proceeding

1. Whether the signals of the Petitioner were disconnected by Respondent No. 1 in compliance with TRAI Regulations?

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to claim outstanding subscription fees and the cost of Set Top Boxes with interest from Respondents No. 1 and 2?

3. Whether Respondent No. 1 is entitled to a refund of security fees for STBs?

4. Whether any liability can be fastened upon Respondent No. 2 for the irregularities of Respondent No. 1?

Section 14 and 14A of the TRAI Act, 1997 regarding its jurisdiction over service provider disputes

The "preponderance of probabilities" standard for civil proceedings

Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, citing Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (onus on the person who asserts a fact) and Raghvamma v. A Cherry Chamma (distinction between burden of proof and shifting onus)

Clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable TV Systems) Regulations, 2012, regarding mandatory notice for migration

Admissibility of electronic records was governed by Section 65B of the Evidence Act

The Tribunal found that Respondent No. 1 admitted to migrating to Respondent No. 2 but failed to prove that the Petitioner had unilaterally deactivated the signals or that the mandatory 21-day statutory notice was served

On the issue of dues, the Petitioner produced computer-generated invoices and a Statement of Account supported by a Section 65B certificate, which the Tribunal accepted as sufficient discharge of the initial onus of proof

Since Respondent No. 1 failed to produce contrary ledgers or evidence of payment, the debt was deemed proved

Regarding the STBs, the Tribunal noted that while 580 were returned via the Court Commissioner, 4 remained with the Respondent; however, since they were now redundant/depreciated, a fixed cost was assigned

Liability was not extended to Respondent No. 2 because there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the competing MSO, and no evidence of connivance was produced

Simple interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded from the date of the petition until realization. All claims against Respondent No. 2 were dismissed due to lack of contractual privity. Respondent No. 1’s claim for a refund of security fees was rejected for lack of evidence