In an ex-parte dispute regarding TV signal transmission dues, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the petitioner's claim for recovery of Rs. 1,95,000 and awarded interest. The respondent failed to appear despite notices.
Ex-parte decree drawn up against the respondent for Rs. 1,95,000 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing.
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. 451(C) of 2013
Cable Vision, Nadia …Petitioner
Vs.
Mahalaxmi Cable Center, Nadia … Respondent
BEFORE :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER
For Petitioner : Mr. Sattwik Shekhar, Advocate For Respondent : None
ORDER
By Aftab Alam, Chairperson – The petitioner, Cable Vision, is a Multi System Operator, operating in the area of Nabadwip, Nadia District, West Bengal. It receives the signals of channels from broadcast-satellites as
well as locally delivered TV channels/ bouquets of channels (including pay
channels), retransmits those channels and supplies those channels through its network to local cable operators for further distribution. The respondent,
2
Mahalaxmi Cable Center is a partnership firm and it is a local cable operator operating in the same area.
The petitioner has filed this petition for recovery of Rs. 1,95,000/- as dues of subscription charges from the respondent.
The respondent did not appear despite repeated service of notice; hence, the petition has proceeded ex-parte .
According to the petitioner, the respondent entered into a subscription agreement for Non-Addressable System dated 04.06.2012 with it for transmission services to be provided to the petitioner on a non-exclusive basis on payment of Rs.3000/- as monthly subscription fees. The agreement is for a term of 3 years and the parties agreed for provision of service on payment of installation charges, subscription fees and the Basic Tier Service charge by the respondent to the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent, in breach of the regulations, started taking signals from another MSO as well, without any information to the petitioner and without his consent. The petitioner sent a letter to the respondent on 17.05.2013 stating that its action was causing huge losses to the petitioner. In this letter, the petitioner also pointed out that the respondent had not complied with the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Petition no. 321(C) of 2012 whereby it was directed that only the petitioner
3
can reconnect the cable signals of the respondent. It is further the case of the petitioner that its signals distributed by the petitioner were of poor quality causing complaints from sub-operators and a few of them wrote to the petitioner complaining about the poor quality of its signals being supplied by the respondent. It is further stated that the supply of signals to the respondent, in terms of interconnect agreement, was never disconnected and the respondent is enjoying the services rendered by the petitioner continuously. It is further stated that the respondent did not submit its subscriber reports despite several requests to him by the petitioner. Invoices were raised by the petitioner on time for the period June 2012 to November 2013 but no payments were made by the respondent against those invoices. According to the petitioner, as per the last invoice, dated 01.11.2013, the amount due against the respondent was Rs.1,95,000/- .
Along with the petition, copies are filed of the registration certificate, subscription agreement, monthly invoices and the request letter for giving SLR.
It is alleged that despite repeated requests, the respondent did not pay its lawful dues and the petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file this petition.
4
In support of its claim, the petitioner examined one Mahadeb Debnath
as witness in the case. Debnath is the proprietor of the petitioner concern.
He duly proved the documents produced by the petitioner in support if its
claim against the respondent. Some extracts from the witness’s deposition are as under:
5
addressable system dated 4.6.2012 is exhibited as EXHIBIT PW/1.
9……… I further submit that the respondent approached the erstwhile MSO, Digi Cablecomm also for signals despite continuing to receive signals of GTPL through my network and as Digi Cablecomm was not interested in operating in the areas of the respondent hence the respondent did not succeed in getting the signals directly from Digi Cablecomm. The respondent probably thought that there was a dispute between my network and Digi and wanted to take advantage of the same. But the respondent continued to show GTPL through my network as I did not disconnect and the respondent has very unreliable relationship with the rival but showing the threat of rival the respondent has stopped paying to me despite receiving the signals from my network. The respondent started taking signals from another MSO as well but without informing the same to me, without complying with the relevant regulations and also without disconnecting the signals of my network, which implies that the respondent started having both the feeds i.e. feed of my network and feed of another MSO. As soon as I came to know about the same, I wrote a letter dated 17.5.2013 to the respondent telling the respondent that due to the illegal acts of the respondent, I and my network has suffered and is suffering huge losses. I further told the respondent that in case the respondent wants to disconnect the signals of my network it may do so after
6
making payment of all the outstanding dues. I further called upon the respondent to inform me if the respondent wants to disconnect the signals of my network then in that case, I will not be responsible to pay for the respondent to my MSO in future. I further state that till date I have been made liable to make payments to my MSO for giving signals to the respondent as the current MSO is not ready to give the downgradation to me as the respondent is still showing the signals of my network. I state that no reply till date has been received by me from the respondent despite the fact that the said letter was duly delivered to the respondent. A copy of the letter dated 17.5.2013 is annexed as EXHIBIT PW/4.
The deposition of the witness remains unchallenged and there is no
reason not to accept its veracity.
In light of discussion made above, we accept the petitioner’s claim
and ex-parte allow the petition. The office is directed to draw up a decree
against the respondent for the amount claimed by the petitioner. The decretal
7
amount will also carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till the date of actual payment.
Since the case has proceeded ex-parte , there will no order as to costs.
..……………. (Aftab Alam) Chairperson
..……………….. (Kuldip Singh) Member
sks &nc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recovery of subscription charges dues from the respondent.
Cable Vision, Nadia
Mahalaxmi Cable Center, Nadia
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
