Mandatory annual interconnection regulations terminate pre-existing seven-year lock-in obligations.

Kal Cables, an MSO, sought recovery from the Respondent, an LCO, under an Interconnect Agreement dated 20 November 2014.

It claimed ₹9,15,182 for premature termination during a seven-year lock-in period and sought return of 185 SD and three HD set-top boxes (STBs), or their value.

The Respondent admitted signing the agreement but disputed the lock-in claim and ownership of the STBs, relying in part on the 2016 regulatory changes requiring agreements to conform to the Model or Standard Interconnect Agreement.

Kal Cables alleged that the Respondent migrated to another MSO in December 2016 without notice and failed to return the equipment.

The Tribunal framed issues concerning the agreement’s validity, regulatory compliance, recovery of STBs and compensation, and interest.

1. Whether the Interconnect Agreement dated 20 November 2014 was valid and whether its seven-year lock-in term was consistent with the applicable Interconnection Regulations.

2. Whether Kal Cables proved that it had supplied the Respondent with 185 SD and three HD STBs and was entitled to their return or value.

3. Whether Kal Cables was entitled to compensation for premature delinking during the lock-in period.

4. Whether Kal Cables was entitled to interest, and, if so, at what rate.

Sections 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, provided the basis for the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the Seventh Amendment to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations, 2016, which required the parties to enter into an MIA or SIA, or amend the existing agreement, and provided for a one-year agreement term with renewal.

It also relied on the Indian Evidence Act burden-of-proof principles, including the rule that the party asserting a fact bears the initial burden and that the evidential onus may shift as evidence is produced; the Tribunal cited Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, Premlata v. Arhant Kumar Jain, Lakshman v. Venkateswarloo, State of J v. Hindustan Forest Co., M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Raghvamma v. A. Chenchamma.

The Tribunal treated the admitted signatures on the written agreement as proof of its execution and interpreted its terms accordingly.

It also referred to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, in observing that consideration may be past consideration.

The Tribunal held that the parties’ admitted execution of the 2014 agreement established a valid agreement, but the subsequent 2016 Regulations affected the continued operation of its seven-year lock-in term: the lock-in ceased to apply from 15 March 2016 unless the agreement was renewed or adjusted in conformity with the MIA or SIA framework.

As the Respondent’s migration occurred in December 2016, Kal Cables did not establish compensable loss from termination during an enforceable lock-in period; its claim for ₹9,15,182 was therefore rejected.

On the equipment claim, the Tribunal found documentary acknowledgement of 185 STBs, but not of the three HD STBs.

The Respondent’s assertion that the STBs had been purchased was unsupported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal accordingly assessed compensation for the 185 STBs and accessories at ₹1,200 each, allowing for depreciation and wear.

It considered 9% simple interest reasonable.

It ordered the Respondent to pay ₹2,22,000 for the 185 STBs and accessories, with simple interest at 9% per annum from 23 February 2017 until payment, and directed deposit within two months, failing which the amount could be recovered through due process.

It did not award the claimed ₹9,15,182 for premature delinking or compensation for the three HD STBs.