LCO liable for subscription dues and depreciated STB costs upon migration without statutory notice.

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO) formerly known as IndusInd Media and Communications Ltd., entered into a Digital Addressable System (DAS) Interconnect Agreement with Respondent No. 1 (a Local Cable Operator - LCO) on 08.01.2013

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 migrated to a competing MSO (Respondent No. 2) in February 2015 without serving the mandatory 21-day notice required under Clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the DAS Regulations, 2012, and without clearing outstanding subscription dues

The Petitioner further sought the return or cost of 499 Set Top Boxes (STBs)

During proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner recovered 490 STBs, leaving 9 STBs unaccounted for

Respondent No. 1 contended the Petitioner unilaterally disconnected signals and failed to refund security deposits

The Tribunal applied Section 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997, regarding its jurisdiction over disputes between service providers

The court relied on the Indian Evidence Act, specifically Section 101 (burden of proof) and Section 102 (onus of proof), as interpreted in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (onus lies on the party asserting a fact) and Lakshman v. Venkateswarloo (legal burden of proof remains constant)

Furthermore, the court applied Section 65B of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of electronic records (computer-generated invoices and statements of account)

Clauses 6.4 and 6.5 of the Interconnection DAS Regulations, 2012, were invoked regarding mandatory notice periods for disconnection

The Tribunal found that the Petitioner discharged its initial onus by producing computer-generated statements of account accompanied by a Section 65B certificate, proving a debt of Rs. 6,17,597

Under the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the onus shifted to Respondent No. 1 to prove payment; however, Respondent No. 1 failed to produce any ledger or cogent evidence of settlement

Regarding the disconnection (Issue No. 2), the Tribunal noted that while Respondent No. 1 admitted to migrating to Respondent No. 2, it failed to prove that the Petitioner had disconnected the signals unlawfully

On the STBs, since 490 were returned via the Commissioner, the Tribunal assessed a depreciated value of Rs. 1,000 per box for the remaining 9 boxes

Claims against Respondent No. 2 were dismissed due to a lack of "Privity of Contract" and absence of evidence regarding connivance in the illegal migration

Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 6,17,597 towards subscription dues and Rs. 9,000 for the depreciated cost of 9 STBs

Simple interest at 9% per annum was awarded pendente lite and for the future until realization

The claims for security fee refunds by Respondent No. 1 were rejected for lack of evidence

Claims against Respondent No. 2 were dismissed