### MSO Entitled to Arrears and Depreciated Cost of Unreturned STBs Following LCO’s Unauthorized Migration

The Petitioner, a Multi System Operator (MSO), entered into a DAS Interconnect Agreement with Respondent No. 1 (a Local Cable Operator - LCO) on 08.01.2013.

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 migrated to a competing MSO (Respondent No. 2) in February 2015 without providing the mandatory 21-day notice required under DAS Regulations 2012 and without clearing outstanding subscription dues.

The Petitioner sought recovery of Rs. 7,90,436/- in arrears and the cost of 615 Set Top Boxes (STBs).

During proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner facilitated the return of 588 STBs, leaving 27 STBs unaccounted for.

Respondent No. 1 claimed the Petitioner illegally disconnected signals and denied any outstanding dues.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to claim outstanding subscription fees and the cost of STBs along with interest from Respondents No. 1 and 2?

2. Whether the signals were disconnected by Respondent No. 1 in compliance with TRAI Regulations?

3. Whether Respondent No. 1 is entitled to a refund of security fees for STBs?

4. Whether the Petitioner can claim relief against Respondent No. 2 for the alleged irregularities of Respondent No. 1?

Section 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997 regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction over service provider disputes.

Clause 6.4 and 6.5 of the Interconnection Digital Addressable System (DAS) Regulations, 2012, which mandate a 21-day notice period before migrating or disconnecting signals.

The Tribunal applied Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act and principles from Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, holding that the initial onus lies on the party asserting a fact, but once discharged, the onus shifts to the opponent.

Evidence was admitted under Section 65B of the Evidence Act concerning electronic records (computer-generated invoices).

The Tribunal found that Respondent No. 1 admitted to the end of the relationship in February 2015 but failed to prove that the Petitioner was responsible for the disconnection.

The Petitioner successfully discharged its onus by providing uncontroverted affidavit evidence and a Statement of Account certified under Section 65B.

Conversely, Respondent No. 1 provided only vague denials and failed to produce its own accounts or evidence of payment.

Regarding the STBs, since the agreement identified them as the Petitioner's property, Respondent No. 1 was liable for those not returned.

Claims against Respondent No. 2 were dismissed as there was no "privity of contract" between the Petitioner and the competing MSO.

Respondent No. 1 was ordered to pay Rs. 7,90,436/- for subscription dues and Rs. 27,000/- as the depreciated cost for the 27 unreturned STBs. The Tribunal awarded pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum simple interest from the date of the petition until realization. Respondent No. 1's claim for a refund of security fees was rejected due to a lack of evidence.