Petitioner broadcaster sought recovery of Rs.2,07,574/- as subscription dues from an MSO respondent defaulted for non-payment of monthly fees. Tribunal allowed the claim pending ex parte.
Decree for Rs.2,07,574/- along with interest @ 18% from January 1, 2013 to October 14, 2014 and @ 9% thereafter.
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 1st July, 2015
Petition No.147(C) of 2014
MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
Versus
Plaza Cable
.....Respondent
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER
For Petitioner
: Mr. Nittin Bhatia, Advocate
For Respondent
: None.
ORDER
By Aftab Alam, Chairperson – MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, is a broadcaster and it supplies its TV channels, for consideration, to MSOs for further distribution and retransmission. It has filed this petition against, Plaza Cable, a sole proprietorship concern, operating as a multi-system operator, from whom the petitioner seeks recovery of Rs.2,07,574/- as dues of monthly subscription fees.
2
The respondent did not appear despite repeated notices served to it and hence, the petition was proceeded ex parte.
According to the petitioner, it had entered into a subscription agreement with the respondent on 3 August, 2012 for retransmission of its TV channels in the municipal limits of Barpeta Town on payment of an agreed lump sum amount of Rs.33,188/(exclusive of taxes) as monthly subscription charges. The subscription agreement was for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012.
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was irregular in payment of its monthly subscription fee and defaulted in the monthly payments and as a result arrears of subscription fees amounting to Rs.1,76,500/- became due from it as on 31 October 2012. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not pay its dues despite repeated reminders and hence, left with no other option, the petitioner issued a notice dated 01.11.2012 under clause 4.1 of the Interconnect Regulations.
However, the respondent chose not to respond to the said notice as well. The petitioner thereafter published public notices dated
3
02.11.2012 under clause 4.3 of the Regulations in the two leading local newspapers; viz (i) The Times of India (English) and (ii) Pratahkal (Regional). However, according to the petitioner, neither any payment nor any response was received from the respondent and therefore, the petitioner deactivated its signals to the respondent on 26.11.2012. The petitioner thereafter sent a legal notice dated 03.10.2013 to the respondent demanding its outstanding dues amounting to Rs.2,07,574/- but to no avail. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file this petition before the Tribunal.
The petitioner in support of its case, examined one Hrishikesh Goswami, who is serving as Area Sales Manager with the petitioner company. In his deposition, he fully supported the petitioner’s claim against the respondent. He identified and proved the subscription agreement executed by the respondent, which is marked as Exhibit PW-1/1. He also identified and proved copies of the monthly invoices raised by the petitioner against the respondent, which are marked as Exhibit PW-1/2(collectively). He identified and proved the notice dated 01.11.2012 issued under
4
clause 4.1 of the Interconnect Regulations along with its postal receipt, which is marked as Exhibit PW-1/3. He also identified and proved the public notices dated 02.11.2012 issued under clause 4.3 of the Interconnect Regulations, which are marked as Exhibit PW-
1/4. Further, he identified and proved the legal notice dated 03.10.2013 sent to the respondent along with its postal receipt, which is marked as Exhibit PW-1/5. Finally, he identified and proved the statement of account, which is marked as Exhibit PW1/6.
Some extracts from the witness’s deposition in the case are as under:
“7. I say that the parties hereto have had a long standing business relationship and that the Respondent had been retransmitting the signals of the Petitioner Company in terms of the various Subscription Agreements entered into between the parties. The Petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to file the various subscription agreements entered into between the parties from time to time at a large stage, if required. The Petitioner states that the present dispute relates to the Subscription Agreement bearing reference no. 092174, vide which the Petitioner authorized the Respondent to re-transmit its signals in the Municipal limits of Barpeta Town. The Petitioner states that in terms of the said Subscription Agreement, the Respondent was liable to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs.33,188/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Eight) per month being the monthly subscription charges which, after adding taxes amounted to Rs.37,289/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eight Nine) per month. A copy of the Subscription Agreement, signed and executed by and
5
between the parties hereto is exhibited hereto as Exhibit – PW-1/1(colly.).
The case of the petitioner is fully supported by oral and documentary evidences that remain completely unchallenged and
6
uncontroverted before the Tribunal. There is, therefore, no reason
not to accept the petitioner’s claim.
We accordingly allow the petitioner’s claim and hold the petitioner entitled to a decree for the sum of Rs.2,07,574/- along with interest @ 18% from 1 January 2013 to 14 October 2014, the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal and @ 9% from 15 October 2014 till the date of realization.
Since the petition has proceeded ex parte , there shall be no order as to costs.
......................... (Aftab Alam) Chairperson
........................... (Kuldip Singh) Member
sks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover outstanding subscription fees from the respondent MSO for default in payment?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the claimed dues?
MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd.
Plaza Cable
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.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
