MSO Entitled to Recovery of Subscription Dues and Return of Equipment at Depreciated Value

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO) registered under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, entered into interconnect agreements with the Respondent, a Local Cable Operator (LCO), in April 2013

The Petitioner allocated two LCO codes and issued 1301 Set Top Boxes (STBs), valued at Rs. 1,999/- each, to the Respondent for subscriber deployment

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to clear outstanding subscription dues and engaged in illegal "swapping" of STBs with competing MSOs

Despite service of notice and an interim restraint order, the Respondent failed to file a reply or appear, leading the Tribunal to proceed ex-parte on December 12, 2024

The Petitioner filed an evidence affidavit through its authorized representative, revising the specific outstanding subscription liability to Rs. 5,36,331/- as of July 31, 2018

1. Whether the Respondent is liable to pay the outstanding subscription dues to the Petitioner under the interconnect agreement.

2. Whether the Respondent is required to return 1301 STBs or provide monetary compensation in lieu thereof.

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on the claimed amounts.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 14 read with Section 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997

Regarding the burden of proof, the Tribunal relied on Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Supreme Court's ruling in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, establishing that the initial onus lies on the party asserting a fact

It further applied the principle from M Krishan Vs. Vijay Singh, stating that civil cases are decided on the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt

The court also noted that while the burden of proof is constant, the "onus of proof" shifts during the evaluation of evidence as per Raghvamma Vs. A Cherry Chamma

The Petitioner’s witness proved the existence of the interconnect agreement (Exhibit PW 1/1), the issuance of 1301 STBs, and the relevant invoices (Exhibit PW 1/2) and Statement of Accounts (Exhibit PW 1/3)

The Tribunal noted that the Petitioner’s evidence remained unrebutted because the Respondent failed to participate in the proceedings or produce any documentary evidence

Although the petition originally claimed Rs. 18,33,439/-, the Tribunal accepted the specific figure of Rs. 5,36,331/- as stated in the evidence affidavit as the proven outstanding subscription liability

Regarding the STBs, since the Respondent failed to return the equipment or contest the claim, the Tribunal held them liable to either return the units or pay for them at a depreciated value of 15% (Rs. 1,699/- per box) rather than the original cost of Rs. 1,999/-

The Respondent was further ordered to return 1301 STBs with accessories in working condition within two months

In the event of failure to return the STBs, the Respondent is liable to pay Rs. 22,10,399/- (calculated at the depreciated rate of Rs. 1,699/- per box) plus 9% simple interest

The Tribunal disposed of all interim orders and directed the office to prepare a formal decree