Substantive compensation for swapped STBs is calculated at depreciated value plus interest upon failure to return hardware.

The Petitioner, a Multi-System Operator (MSO), entered into a Model Interconnect Agreement (MIA) with Respondent No. 1, a Local Cable Operator (LCO), for the re-transmission of television signals in West Bengal

Under this agreement, the Petitioner issued 123 Set Top Boxes (STBs) and viewing cards (VCs) to Respondent No. 1

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1, in collusion with Respondent No. 2 (a competing MSO), migrated its services to the competitor by "swapping" and retaining the Petitioner’s exclusive property (the STBs) without following the notice period prescribed by TRAI regulations

Despite a legal notice dated 11.12.2019, the Respondents failed to return the equipment or pay compensation

Both Respondents initially denied the execution of the agreement and the swapping of boxes, but they failed to lead any evidence during the proceedings

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the recovery of STBs and VCs in good working condition or, in the alternative, the cost of the hardware from the Respondents?

2. Whether Respondent No. 1 migrated to Respondent No. 2 in compliance with the Interconnect Regulations of TRAI?

The Tribunal primarily applied Section 14(A)(1) read with Section 14(a)(ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, regarding its jurisdiction over service provider disputes

For the burden of proof, the Tribunal relied on the Indian Evidence Act, specifically Section 102, noting that the initial onus lies on the party asserting a fact

It cited Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh and Lakshman v. Venkateswarloo to affirm that while the "onus of proof" shifts, the "burden of proof" on the pleadings remains constant

Regarding civil liability, it applied the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" as per M Krishnan v. Vijay Singh

For compensation, the Tribunal applied the principle of "depreciated value" for hardware, typically set at 15% per annum

The Tribunal found that the Petitioner successfully established the existence of the Interconnect Agreement and the issuance of 123 STBs through uncontroverted affidavit evidence (Exhibit PW 1/1)

Since the Respondents failed to provide any evidence to rebut these claims, the Petitioner satisfied the "preponderance of probabilities" standard

The Tribunal distinguished the liabilities of the two Respondents: it held Respondent No. 1 liable as the direct party to the contract, but exonerated Respondent No. 2, noting there was no "Privity of Contract" between the Petitioner and a competing MSO

Regarding the claim amount, the Tribunal rejected the Petitioner's demand for the full cost (Rs. 1,600 per STB) and instead applied a 15% annual depreciation, reducing the value to Rs. 1,360 per STB

It held that Respondent No. 1 must either return the 123 STBs and VCs in good working condition within two months or pay a total compensation of Rs. 1,67,280/- (calculated at the depreciated rate of Rs. 1,360 per box)

Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay pendente lite and future simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing until actual payment