This petition was filed for recovery of arrears of subscription charges. The respondent was a cable TV distributor. The petitioner claimed under an agreement. The court noted a limitation defence and calculated a decree.
A decree of Rs. 3,02,432 directed in favour of the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
DATED 6th OCTOBER, 2010
Petition No. 61(C) of 2010
Guntur Communication Network Pvt. Ltd., A.P. ……….. Petitioner Vs. Eswar Cable Vision, A.P. ……….. Respondent
BEFORE :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. G.D. GAIHA, MEMBER HON’BLE MR. P.K. RASTOGI, MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocate
O R D E R
G.D. Gaiha, Member
1. The petitioner is registered under the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) 1995 Act and is a Multi System Operator (MSO). It had been receiving signals from many broadcasters in the town of Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
Page 1 of 5
2. The present petition is filed on 17.3.2010 for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,01,665.45, which includes interest @ 18% alongwith the arrears for a period from 1st February, 2006 till 1st February, 2010 on account of the monthly subscription charges. The petitioner is also seeking an ex-parte ad interim injunction against respondent from seeking connection from any other MSO in the area without prior payment of the subscription fee arrears and restraining it from transgressing into other areas of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that direction may be issued to the respondent to confine itself as per the areas specified in the agreement. The notice was given to the respondent vide our orders dated 23rd March, 2010. On 30th April, 2010 the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice was attempted to be served upon the respondent on the address mentioned in his petition as also the other addresses as mentioned in the cause title, however, the Registered cover letter has come back with the endorsement “left without instructions”.
4. On an oral application made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for service of Notice on the respondent by way of substituted service as contemplated under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC, publication in two newspapers has been carried out and an affidavit in support of the same has been filed on 28th May, 2010 by the petitioner.
Page 2 of 5
5. As per our Orders dated 28th May, 2010 we had posted the matter for exparte hearing since nobody appeared in the Court on behalf of the respondent.
6. In the meantime, the petitioner was directed to file its evidence by way of affidavit and the same has been filed on 8th July, 2010 by Shri V. Ramesh Babu on behalf of the petitioner.
7. The main case of the petitioner is that the arrears have piled up for providing signals to the respondent w.e.f. 1.2.2006 till 1.2.2010 on account of the monthly subscription charges.
8. The signals to the respondent were supplied by the petitioner consequent upon the orders passed by this Tribunal in Petition No. 83(C) of 2006 for almost a year and the respondent did not enter into an agreement immediately.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent entered into an agreement almost after a year for supply of signals on 1st May, 2007.
10. The areas specified are Old Kakumanuvari Thota, Guntur. A subscriber base of 2315 connections was disclosed by the respondent to the petitioner whereas in the agreement itself the respondent agreed to for a subscriber base of 2500. A letter to this effect was also issued by the respondent. A copy of the agreement has been filed by the petitioner
Page 3 of 5
which was signed on 1.5.2007 and the letter communicating to agree for signing for a subscriber base of 2500 is also submitted by the petitioner as exhibit PW-1/2, PW-1/3 respectively.
11. Petitioner issued several letters to the respondent to desist from illegal transmission of signals to unauthorized areas and to pay for the full subscriber base as per the agreement.
12. Regular monthly invoices reflecting the arrears for the prior period apart from the regular monthly charges were served upon the respondent and have been filed with the petition for a period from 1.4.2006 till 31.10.2009. The total net outstanding is Rs.2,65,967/-.
13. A large number of receipts which have been issued to the respondent on the basis of the payment made by it in response to the invoices are also enclosed alongwith the invoices for a period from 29.5.2006 till 9.07.2009. A statement of account has also been filed which shows a net outstanding of Rs.3,76,267/- as on 1st February, 2010.
14. The petitioner has claimed total amount of Rs.4,10,665.45 including interest @ 18% from 1.8.2009 till 1.2.2010 as it fell due on various dates. Principal outstanding amount is Rs. 3,76,267/- and interest amount is Rs.25,398/-.
15. As per evidence affidavit filed by Mr. V Ramesh Babu, Accounts & Administrative Officer of the petitioner has verified the above claim as
Page 4 of 5
borne out from the records and also from the various exhibits which have been certified to be true copies of their respective originals.
16. However, we find that the claim by virtue of the Limitation Act can be considered payable only w.e.f. 1.3.2007 till 1.2.2010 which works out to Rs.2,82,200/- as the principal amount and Rs.20,232/- as the interest amount totaling to Rs.3,00,644/-. We are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for passing a decree of Rs.3,02,432/-. It is directed accordingly.
…………………….J (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson
…………………. (G.D. Gaiha) Member
…………………. (P.K. Rastogi) Member
Pk/rkc
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover arrears of subscription charges from the respondent.
Whether the claim is barred by the Limitation Act or prima facie supportable.
Guntur Communication Network Pvt. Ltd., A.P.
Eswar Cable Vision, A.P.
S.B. Sinha
G.D. Gaiha
P.K. Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
A petition before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in a broadcasting or cable-distribution dispute.
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
