A claim for subscription fees is barred by limitation if the petitioner fails to establish mutual obligations and the claim exceeds the three-year limit under Article 113 of the Limitation Act.

ORDER

By Aftab Alam, Chairperson –

The petitioner describes itself as a unit of Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd., which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act , 1956. It is a Multi System Operator (MSO), as defined under regulation 2(m) of the 2004 Interconnect Regulations . The respondent is a partnership firm and it works as a cable operator.

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking recovery of the sum of Rs.81,05,301/- from the respondent as dues of subscription fees. According to the petitioner, it supplied the signals of its channels to the respondent in terms of an interconnect agreement on a monthly subscription fees for Rs.20,00,002/-. The respondent, however, persistently defaulted in payment of the monthly fees and as a consequence, the petitioner’s dues against it accumulated to the aforementioned figure.

The period to which the dues relate is not easy to discern from the petition. The date on which the petitioner commenced the supply of its signals to the respondent is nowhere stated in the petition and different dates are given as to when the supply of signals was discontinued and the date to which the claimed amount relates. In paragraph 4 (c) that contains the gist of the petitioner’s claim it is stated:

“c) That the respondent had an (sic) subscription agreement with the petitioner for distribution of petiti oner’s signals, on the monthly lump sum payment of Rs.20,00,002/-. The relationship between the parties continued till the end of July 2010 . The petitioner continuously provided signals from its network to the respondent till July 2010 . So, as per this arrangement between the parties the respondent was mandated to pay to the petitioner, a monthly subscription charges of Rs.20,00,002/- excluding taxes in advance, on or before 10 th day of every calendar month. That on the basis aforesaid arrangement, the respondent continuously enjoyed the signals of TV channels from the petitioner network upto August 2011 and during this period, the petitioner was continuously raising and serving invoices upon the respondent on regular basis. But the respondent was irregular in making payment of monthly subscription charges (copy of monthly invoices alongwith proof of service are enclosed hereto as Annexure P- 2 collectively).” (emphasis added) In Paragraph 4 (g), however, it is stated that:

“…… despite consuming signals of the petitioners (sic) network up to September 2011 …….” (emphasis added)

The matter is further confounded by prayer clause (a) that seeks from the Tribunal:

“ Order/decree in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent for recovery of the sum of Rs.81,05,301 (Rupees Eighty one Lakh, Five Thousand, Three Hundred and one only) along with interest @ 18% thereon w.e.f. 30/07/2011 being the outstanding subscription fee payable by the respondent to the petitioner. ”

(emphasis added)

From the prayer it would appear that the relationship between the two sides continued till the month of July of the year 2011 and the amount claimed was due on 30 July 2011.

But if we turn to the documents enclosed with the petition it would immediately appear that the confusion of months (July, August and September) and of years (2010, 2011) is the result of careless and mindless drafting. The petition has enclosed with it invoices for the months of April to August 2010. The first invoice is dated 1 April 2010; it is for the month of April 2010 and the pay-by-date is 7 April 2010. Invoices for the subsequent months are similarly raised in advance and the date of payment for every month is by the 7 th of that month. Likewise, the invoice for the month of July 2010 is dated 1 July 2010 and the pay-by-date is 7 July 2010. Here it also needs to be noted that though an invoice was issued also for the month of August 2010, from the statement of accounts enclosed with the petition, it