LCO Liable for Subscription Dues and STB Costs Despite Migration to Competing MSO.

The Petitioner, a Multi System Operator (MSO), entered into a Standard Technical and Commercial Interconnect Agreement (DAS) on January 1, 2014, with Respondent No. 1 (a Local Cable Operator/LCO).

Under the agreement and Clause 4.10, the Set Top Boxes (STBs) provided remained the exclusive property of the MSO.

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 migrated to a competitor, Respondent No. 2, in early 2015 without the mandatory 21-day statutory notice and failed to return 207 STBs or clear outstanding subscription dues.

Despite service through newspaper publication, Respondent No. 1 remained absent and was proceeded against ex-parte.

Respondent No. 2 appeared, arguing it had no privity of contract with the Petitioner.

1. Whether Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay outstanding subscription dues and the cost of unreturned STBs to the Petitioner.

2. Whether Respondent No. 2, as a competitive MSO, can be held jointly or severally liable for the defaults of the LCO.

3. What is the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded on the claimed amounts.

Section 14A (1) and Section 14 (a) (ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, regarding the tribunal's jurisdiction over disputes between service providers.

Interconnection DAS Regulations, 2012 (specifically Clauses 6.4 and 6.5) regarding notice periods for migration.

Indian Evidence Act, Section 65B, to admit computerized statements of account.

Doctrine of Privity of Contract, which establishes that rights and obligations only arise between parties to a contract.

The Tribunal found that the Petitioner successfully proved the existence of a contractual relationship and the subsequent breach through uncontroverted affidavit evidence and exhibited documents (Exhibits PW-1 to PW-5).

Regarding Respondent No. 2, the Tribunal reasoned that since there was no contractual relationship or legal privity between the two MSOs, the competitive MSO could not be fastened with any liability for the LCO's illegal swapping or defaults.

As Respondent No. 1 failed to file a reply or lead evidence to rebut the claim, the Petitioner's ledgers and invoices—supported by a Section 65B affidavit—sufficiently established the debt of Rs. 3,15,170/- and the liability for 207 STBs valued at Rs. 1,400/- each.

The Tribunal modified the interest rate from the prayed 18% to 9% per annum, citing the current fiscal scenario and established precedents.

Respondent No. 1 was ordered to pay Rs. 3,15,170/- (subscription dues) and Rs. 2,89,800/- (cost of STBs), totaling Rs. 6,04,970/-, along with simple interest at 9% per annum from April 1, 2015, until the date of actual realization.

The payment must be deposited within two months, failing which the decree shall be executed.