Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 7

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MR. RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J
Digi Cablecomm Services India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Arijit Mukherjee (Sole proprietor of Babu Cable Network) – Respondent
Broadcasting Petition No. 39 of 2016 | Broadcasting Petition No. 40 of 2016 | Broadcasting Petition No. 41 of 2016 | Broadcasting Petition No. 42 of 2016 | Broadcasting Petition No. 43 of 2016 | Broadcasting Petition No. 44 of 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Diggaj Pathak, Ms. Shweta Sharma, Ms. Prachi Kohli
For the Respondents: Mr. Sharath Sampath, Mr. Pranav Pachory

The Tribunal held that written interconnection agreements are mandatory for service provision, and any oral arrangements are void under relevant regulations, emphasizing the importance of written contracts in the broadcasting sector.

Headnote:(A) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Sections 14 and 14A - Broadcasting Petition concerning outstanding fees and return of equipment - Petitioner sought Rs.3,98,558/- and compensation for 661 Set Top Boxes (STBs) with associated equipment, asserting maintenance of interconnection agreements - Respondent contested amounts and claimed STBs returned - Tribunal upheld that oral agreements are not permissible under relevant regulations - Respondent ordered to pay outstanding fees, STB compensation, and costs of transmitters. (Paras 1, 3, 12, 16, 18, 22, 41)

(B) Interconnection Agreement - Written agreements mandatory for service continuity - Oral arrangements contravene established regulations, affecting the rights of service providers and consumers in the sector - Continuity of service requires a written framework; Tribunal ruled the verbal arrangement void. (Paras 21, 40, 41)

(C) Burden of Proof - Initial responsibility lies with the claimant; failure to produce adequate evidence affects the ability to support claims effectively - Tribunal emphasized both parties must adequately provide supporting evidence to establish their respective positions. (Paras 25, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner provided 661 STBs to the respondent but faced non-payment and alleged migration to another MSO causing loss. Evidence presented of partial payments and return of STBs led to disputes over amounts owed.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner entitled to dues of Rs. 4,01,008/- with interest, STB compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for unreturned items, and costs for transmitters totaling Rs. 40,000/-.

Issues: 1) Entitlement to subscription fees and penalties. 2) Violation of the Deed of Undertaking. 3) Return of supplies. 4) Written agreements status and regulatory compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal found the contract between parties not fully adhered to; unreturned STBs warrant compensation; corroborated by evidence, with emphasis on written agreements in line with regulatory obligations.

Result: Petition allowed with directed payments.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for recovery of outstanding dues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of agreements regarding stbs and payments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. respondent's counterclaims and defenses. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. arguments regarding the claim's maintainability. (Para 16 , 19)
5. legal framework surrounding interconnection agreements. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. burden of proof in proving claims for dues. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. discussion around the specifics of stb supply. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
8. issue of invoices and service of documents. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
9. conclusion on the legitimacy of subscription charges. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
10. outcome of the arguments raised in the petition. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
11. final judgment and orders issued by the tribunal. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT

Broadcasting Petition No. 39 of 2016

1. This broadcasting petition, under Section 14 read with Section 14 A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 , as amended to date (hereinafter referred to as “TRAI Act”) on behalf of the above Petitioner company – Digi Cablecomm Services Pvt. Ltd., against the Respondent viz Mr. Arijit Mukherjee, Sole Proprietor of M/s Babu Cable Network has been filed with a prayer to direct the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,98,558/- towards the outstanding subscription fees with a further direction to the Respondent to forthwith return the 661 Set Top Boxes (STBs) along with Viewing cards and Remote Control Units and other accessories to the Petitioner and permit the Petitioner to inspect the same for damages and tampering, or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.11,23,700/-, being the cost of STB’s and the accessories, plus Rs. 40,000/- , being the cost of the 2 Transmitters. Respondent be further directed to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 16,52,500/- in terms of Clause 3 of the Deed of Undertaking dated 20.11.2014, executed in between, and interest on the above outstanding amount at the rate of eighteen percent per annum (18% p.a.), or at such rate as this Tribunal may deem fit from the date the such payments were due, upto the date on which payment is made future interest be also awarded. Costs of the Petition be also awarded. Any other relief which this Tribunal may deem fit may also be awarded.

2. In brief, contention of the petitioner is that petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is a Multi System Operator (“MSO”) having its presence in and around the city of Kolkata, its peripheries and also to various other districts in the State of West Bengal. The Petitioner operates in many major cities of West Bengal. It had multiple placement agreements/definitive legal Memorandum of Understandings with various Broadcasters/Distributors for retransmitting their respective TV channel signals to the Local Cable Operators(LCOs)/ Affiliate Sub Operators/ MCR’s/ LCO’s affiliated to the Petitioner and/or subscribers forming part the Petitioner’s network.

3. The Respondent, is a cable operator duly registered under the Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder, having its business in the various areas at Howrah. The said Cable Operator is in the business of providing signals to its individual subscribers. The Respondent approached the petitioner to avail signals / services of the Petitioner and the facilities, if so extended, for the purpose of providing connection through its cable network system to its subscribers. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an Interconnection Agreement dated 20.11.2014 authorizing the Respondent to receive the signals from the Petitioner and to further retransmit the same to its subscribers in the DAS area of Howrah. The said agreement contained the terms and conditions upon which the Petitioner had agreed to provide the services to the Respondent and it was for the period of Five years. The rate at which the Respondent was to pay s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document