The Appellate Tribunal allowed a recovery petition filed by a Multi System Operator for subscription dues and STB activation charges against a franchise cable operator, granting an ex-parte decree in favor of the petitioner.
Petitioner allowed recovery of Rs. 9,74,995.60 plus interest at 9% per annum from 01.10.2013.
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 18th September, 2014
Petition No. 417(C) of 2013
(M.A. Nos. 25 & 78 of 2014)
SCOD 18 Networking Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner
Vs.
Vijay Cable Network …Respondent
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr. Sharath Sampath, Advocate
For Respondent
: None
O R D E R
Kuldip Singh : This is a recovery petition for subscription amount for the channels of the petitioner subscribed by the respondent as well as the cost of STBs provided by the petitioner.
Page 1 of 5
The petitioner raised invoices for the activation of these STBs @Rs.889.11/- exclusive of taxes for Standard Definition Boxes and @Rs.2670/- exclusive of taxes for High Definition Boxes, as and when
Page 2 of 5
requested by the respondent. The respondent, however, was totally irregular in making payment of the monthly subscription amount as well as STB activation charges resulting in building up of an arrear of Rs.9,74,995/(towards subscription charges) as on date and Rs.1,93,054.91/- (towards STB activation charges) as on April, 2013. The petitioner has annexed the statement of account towards subscription charges as Annexure ‘P-5’ with the petition and towards STB activation charges as Annexure ‘P-6’.
Petitioner further contends that the respondent had issued three cheques dated 13.08.2013, 17.08.2013 and 21.08.2013 amounting to a total of Rs.75,000/- towards partial discharge of its liabilities but all the three cheques were returned on 23.08.2013 by the bank with the remarks ‘Insufficient Funds’. Copies of cheques are annexed as Annexure ‘P-7’ (Colly).
The witness stated that the respondent is the sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Vijay Mishra and confirmed the averments made in the
Page 3 of 5
petition. The witness also identified the copy of agreement dated 09.04.2008 as Exhibit PW1/1, copy of invoices raised on respondent as Exhibit PW1/2 (Colly), sample Customer Requisition Form as ExhibitPW1/3, copies of invoices raised towards STB activation as Exhibit PW1/4 (Colly), Statement of account towards subscription charges for the period 01.11.2012 till date of filing of the petition as Exhibit 1/5 and a statement of account towards STB Activation charges for the period 01.04.2008 till date of filing of the petition as Exhibit PW1/6.
The witness also stated that the respondent is liable to return 973 STBs issued to it by the petitioner alongwith Sim Cards in proper working condition or in the alternative pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per STB.
“5. I state that the respondent is the sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Vijay Mishra who was a Franchise Cable Operator affiliated to the petitioner herein till September 2013
Page 4 of 5
and was retransmitting the signals to its subscribers after obtaining them from the petitioner.”
It is directed that a decree shall be drawn accordingly.
The respondent is also directed to return the 973 STBs alongwith the Sim Cards in proper working condition to the petitioner within one month from the date a copy of this order is served upon it.
……………….. (Aftab Alam) Chairperson
……………….. (Kuldip Singh) Member
HKC/15.09.2014
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the subscriber is liable to pay the arrears of subscription fees and interest?
SCOD 18 Networking Pvt. Ltd.
Vijay Cable Network
Aftab Alam
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
A petition before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in a broadcasting or cable-distribution dispute.
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
