Local Cable Operator liable for return or depreciated value of STBs following unauthorized migration and breach of interconnect agreement.

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO), entered into an Interconnect Agreement (valid from 25.07.2020 to 31.03.2025) with Respondent No. 1 (R-1), a Local Cable Operator (LCO), for the retransmission of signals

The Petitioner provided approximately 655 Set Top Boxes (STBs) to R-1

In December 2020, R-1 allegedly began swapping these STBs to Respondent No. 2 (R-2), a competing MSO, in violation of Interconnect Regulations and the agreement

Despite notices, R-1 failed to clear outstanding invoices or return 232 STBs

The Petitioner sought an injunction against the swapping of STBs and a direction for R-1 to return 232 STBs or pay their depreciated cost

R-1 remained ex-parte, while R-2 denied liability citing a lack of privity of contract

1. Whether the instant Petition is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether Respondent No. 1 illegally migrated to Respondent No. 2 in violation of Interconnected Regulations and the terms of the Agreement?

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the recovery of 232 STBs and viewing cards or, in the alternative, the cost of the STBs?

4. To what other relief/reliefs is the Petitioner entitled?

Section 14A(1) and 14(a)(ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997, which governs disputes between service providers

Regarding the burden of proof in civil proceedings, the Tribunal relied on the "preponderance of probabilities"

Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (AIR 2006 SC 1971) regarding the initial onus of proof on the party asserting a fact

State of JK v. Hindustan Forest Co. (2006) 12 SCC 198, asserting that a plaintiff must stand on the strength of their own evidence

The Tribunal applied the established legal principle that there is no "Privity of Contract" between competing MSOs; therefore, one MSO cannot be held liable for the contractual breaches or misconduct of an LCO shifting to another MSO

The Tribunal found the petition maintainable against R-1 but noted that no claim could be sustained against R-2 due to the absence of privity of contract

Regarding the illegal migration and non-return of STBs, the Tribunal observed that the Petitioner’s evidence—submitted via affidavit—remained uncontroverted as R-1 failed to appear or file a reply

The Petitioner successfully proved that 232 STBs were not returned and established their depreciated value at Rs. 672 per STB

Since the Petitioner’s claims regarding the violation of Interconnect Regulations and the agreement were made on oath and not rebutted, the Tribunal held that the Petitioner had discharged its burden of proof under the principle of preponderance of probabilities

The Tribunal further determined that a 9% per annum simple interest rate was justifiable given the current fiscal scenario

R-1 was directed to return 232 STBs along with viewing cards in good working condition within two months. In the event of default, R-1 is ordered to pay Rs. 1,55,904 (calculated at Rs. 672 per STB). Additionally, the Petitioner was awarded simple interest at 9% per annum (pendente lite and future) until the actual date of payment, along with the costs of the petition.