MSO cannot claim relief against competing MSO for LCO's defaults absent privity of contract.

The Petitioner, a Multi System Operator (MSO), filed this petition under Sections 14 and 14A of the TRAI Act, 1997, against Respondent No. 1 (a Local Cable Operator - LCO) and Respondent No. 2 (a competing MSO).

The Petitioner entered into an Interconnect Agreement with Respondent No. 1, issuing 3,591 Set Top Boxes (STBs) for subscriber use.

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 failed to pay outstanding subscription charges amounting to Rs. 3,17,689.35 and conspired with Respondent No. 2 to swap the Petitioner’s STBs.

Despite a demand notice dated 17.02.2022, the Respondents failed to comply.

Although the Respondents initially appeared, they failed to file a reply, and the matter proceeded ex-parte.

The Petitioner submitted evidence via an uncontroverted affidavit and written submissions.

1. Whether Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay the outstanding subscription dues and restore or compensate for the 3,591 STBs issued by the Petitioner.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any relief against Respondent No. 2 (a competing MSO) in the absence of privity of contract.

The Tribunal applied the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" applicable to civil proceedings under the TRAI Act.

It relied on Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the burden of proof, citing Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh and Lakshman v. Venkateswarloo to establish that the initial onus lies on the party asserting a fact.

The Tribunal further applied the principle of "privity of contract," establishing that a Petitioner MSO cannot seek relief against a competing MSO for the misconduct of an LCO if no contractual relationship exists between the two MSOs.

The Tribunal observed that the Petitioner successfully discharged its initial burden of proof by producing the Interconnect Agreement and evidence of the issuance of 3,591 STBs.

Since the Respondents failed to file a rebuttal or participate in the proceedings effectively, the Petitioner’s evidence—specifically the uncontroverted affidavit of its authorized representative—was accepted as proved.

Regarding the liability of Respondent No. 2, the Tribunal noted its established precedent that a competing MSO cannot be held liable for an LCO’s defiance when there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the competing MSO.

Consequently, the Petitioner's counsel abandoned the claim against Respondent No. 2.

On the issue of interest, the Tribunal determined that 9% per annum simple interest was appropriate based on current fiscal conditions.

Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 3,17,689.35 towards subscription charges and return the 3,591 STBs with accessories in working condition within two months.

In the event of failure to return the STBs, Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay their depreciated value of Rs. 71,82,000.

Simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded pendente lite and for the future, calculated from the date of filing until the actual date of payment.