Liability for carriage fee arrears and simple interest enforceable against broadcaster and authorized agent jointly and severally.

The Petitioner, a Multi System Operator (MSO), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 14.03.2013 with Respondent No. 2 (ABS Media), acting as the authorized agent for Respondent No. 1 (Sahara India TV Network).

The MOU stipulated carriage fees of Rs. 4.2 Crores p.a. for DAS areas and Rs. 1.8 Crores p.a. for Non-DAS areas for the period 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013.

Despite the Petitioner carrying the channels, the Respondents failed to clear outstanding dues according to the invoices raised.

Respondent No. 2 contended it was merely a proforma party and agent with no personal liability, while Respondent No. 1 denied the existence of a binding agreement and claimed Respondent No. 2 lacked authority to bind it.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for the alleged outstanding amount of Rs. 6,51,97,894/- as on 05.08.2013 with 18% p.a. interest against both respondents jointly and severally?

2. Whether the respondents prove that they are not defaulters in payment?

3. To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?

The Tribunal applied Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, regarding its jurisdiction over broadcaster-distributor disputes.

The Tribunal relied on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, establishing that the initial onus lies on the person asserting a fact (Sections 101-102 of the Indian Evidence Act).

The Tribunal applied principles from Lakshman v. Venkateswarloo and Raghvamma v. A Cherry Chamma, distinguishing between the 'burden of proof' (which never shifts) and the 'onus of proof' (which shifts during evaluation).

For civil proceedings, the court applied the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" as per M Krishnan v. Vijay Singh.

The Tribunal found that the Petitioner successfully discharged its initial burden by producing the MOU (Ext. PW-2) and invoices (Ext. PW-3), proving the carriage of signals.

Although Respondent No. 1 denied the agent's authority, it failed to lead any evidence to rebut the Petitioner's claims despite multiple opportunities.

Respondent No. 2 admitted to executing the MOU as an agent during the subsistence of its agency contract.

Under the law of agency, the Tribunal held both the principal (Respondent No. 1) and the agent (Respondent No. 2) jointly and severally liable as they were joint signatories to the MOU.

The Tribunal found the 18% compounded interest claimed by the Petitioner to be inequitable, opting instead for a consistent 9% simple interest rate aligned with previous TDSAT precedents.

The Petition was decreed for a principal carriage fee amount of Rs. 6 Crores (Rs. 4.2 Cr + Rs. 1.8 Cr). Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the said amount along with simple interest at 9% p.a. calculated from 31.03.2013 until the actual date of realization.

Payment must be made within two months, failing which execution proceedings may be initiated.