LCO must return MSO-owned STBs or pay their depreciated value after unauthorized migration.

Hathway Digital Private Limited, an MSO, entered into an online Model Interconnect Agreement with Jagat Gouri Cable Net, an LCO, under which Hathway supplied 377 set-top boxes (STBs) and viewing cards for retransmission of cable television signals to subscribers in Hooghly, West Bengal.

The agreement was valid from 1 August 2019 to 31 August 2020.

Hathway alleged that Jagat Gouri, without giving the contractually and regulatorily required notice, migrated to competing MSO Saptak Digital Pvt. Ltd. and swapped 194 Hathway STBs without returning them or paying their value.

Hathway sought return of the 194 STBs in working condition or their cost of Rs. 2,92,800, along with injunctive relief against the respondents.

Jagat Gouri denied the existence of an MSO–LCO relationship and claimed that it acted merely as Hathway’s agent or facilitator for installing STBs and collecting subscriber recharges.

Saptak denied receiving Hathway’s STBs and contended that there was no privity of contract between it and Hathway.

Hathway relied on the online interconnect agreement, portal records, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The respondents did not lead evidence, and the matter proceeded ex parte on 9 September 2025.

1. Whether Hathway was entitled to recover 194 STBs and viewing cards from the respondents, or alternatively their depreciated value?

2. Whether Jagat Gouri had migrated from Hathway to Saptak and, if so, whether the migration complied with the applicable TRAI Interconnect Regulations and the interconnect agreement?

3. Whether the online Model Interconnect Agreement was validly executed and established an MSO–LCO relationship between Hathway and Jagat Gouri?

4. Whether Saptak, as a competing MSO with no privity of contract with Hathway, could be held liable for Jagat Gouri’s alleged failure to return the STBs?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Sections 14(A)(1) and 14(a)(ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

It applied the civil standard of proof—preponderance of probabilities—rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Relying on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1971, Premlata v. Arhant Kumar Jain, AIR 1976 SC 626, Lakshman v. Venkateswarloo, AIR 1949 PC 278, State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co., (2006) 12 SCC 198, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, 2001 Cri LJ 4705, and Raghvamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136, the Tribunal held that the party asserting a fact bears the initial and continuing burden of proving it, although the evidentiary onus may shift during trial.

The Tribunal also relied on the Model Interconnect Agreement, particularly Clause 9.6, which prohibited an LCO from replacing an MSO’s STBs with those of another MSO without subscriber requests, requisite application forms, and activation of the new STBs through the new MSO’s subscriber management system.

The online agreement and related electronic records were treated as proved through the Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In the absence of privity of contract, a competing MSO was not held liable for the LCO’s obligations to the original MSO.

The Tribunal accepted Hathway’s affidavit evidence and the electronically executed Model Interconnect Agreement, noting that Jagat Gouri neither cross-examined Hathway’s witness nor adduced evidence in rebuttal.

The Section 65B certificate sufficiently supported the electronic agreement and portal records, establishing the contractual MSO–LCO relationship.

Hathway’s pleaded case specifically concerned 194 STBs, and the Tribunal therefore confined the relief to those STBs rather than all 377 units issued.

On the uncontroverted evidence, the Tribunal found that Jagat Gouri had swapped or migrated the 194 Hathway STBs to Saptak without following Clause 9.6 or the applicable interconnect procedure, including the required notice and subscriber documentation.

Since Saptak had no contractual relationship with Hathway and denied possession of Hathway’s equipment, no liability could be imposed on it merely because it was the competing MSO to which Jagat Gouri migrated.

As the agreement dated from 2019–2020 and the equipment was electronic, the Tribunal reduced the claimed value by applying depreciation at 15% per annum, fixing the value at Rs. 1,360 per STB.

Jagat Gouri was directed, within two months of the judgment, either to return all 194 Hathway STBs with accessories in good and working condition or deposit Rs. 2,63,840 before the Tribunal, calculated at Rs. 1,360 per STB, together with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until payment.

In default, the amount was directed to be recovered through execution proceedings.