HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS NXT DIGITAL LTD.) Vs AJAY SHRIWAS

1. This Petition, under Section 14A (1), read with Section 14 (a) (ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as “TRAI Act”), has been filed, by IndusInd Media and Communications Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai, Petitioner, against Ajay Shriwas, Proprietor of Ajay Cable Network, Nagpur and Siti Cable Network Limited, Respondents, with a prayer for award of outstanding subscription dues in the tune of Rs.3,15,170/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Seventy Only) due against Respondent No.1, and cost of 207 STBs @ 1400 per STBs, amounting to Rs.2,89,800/- (Rupees Two Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Only), for default of making return of same and illegal swapping by Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.2, without observing statutory obligations, with a further prayer for grant of interest @ 18% per annum, over above total amount of Rs.6,04,970/- (Rupees Six Lacs Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Only), till actual date of realisation, jointly and severally against both of the Respondents. 2. In brief, the Petition contends, that Petitioner is a Multi System Operator(MSO) operating PAN India and having one of its networks in the city of Nagpur, Maharashtra. It receives signals of various free to air and pay channels, from the Broadcasters, at its head ends and thereafter re-transmits the same, to the Local Cable Operators/franchises, affiliated to it. Mr. Devender Singh Thakur is the authorised representative, vide Board Resolution, dated 21st May, 2015, which is Annexure P-1 to Petition. 3. Respondent No.1 is a proprietary firm of Ajay Shriwas, running cable business in Nagpur city, as a Local Cable Operator (LCO) of the Petitioner.

4. Respondent No.2, M/s Siti Cable Network Limited (erstwhile known as Wire and Wireless (India) Ltd), is a part of the Essel Group and is the leading Multi System Operator, Pan India, involved in the business, as a competitive MSO of Petitioner. 5. The Respondent No.1, being desirous to have business with Petitioner, entered into agreement, by way of executing Standard Technical and Commercial Interconnect Agreement (DAS), dated 1st January, 2014, with rights and obligations given in this, for transmitting the transmission being made by Petitioner. This agreement, dated 1st January, 2014 is Annexure P-2 to the Petition, and under clause 4.10 of this agreement, there is specific mention of the fact that “the Set Top Boxes (STB) provided by MSO to LCO, at all times, shall remain the exclusive property of the MSO”. 6. The Petitioner had provided 207 STBs at various scores to Respondent No.1 for installing at the subscriber’s end for fulfilling above agreement, and this is Annexure P-3 to the Petition, wherein the cost of each of the STBs, as per “Invoice Cum Delivery Challan” was specified to be of Rs. 1400/-, in the documents concerning to it. But in utter disregard of 21 days’ statutory notice, mandated under sub clause 6.4 and 6.5 of Interconnection DAS Regulations, 2012, Respondent No.1, migrated to competitive MSO -

Respondent No.2 illegally. Petitioner came to know this fact of migration in 1st week of April, 2015, though swapping started from the end of month of February, 2015 and was completed by March, 2015. The invoices, generated by computer, regularly towards subscription dues, were handed over to Respondent No.1, for making payment for it. But, the payment was always very irregular. This is proved by way of Statement of Account, being maintained by Petitioner, in its usual course of business, and annexed with the Petition as Annexure P-5, wherein a total outstanding subscription due was Rs.3,15,170/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Seventy Only), till March, 2015. The invoices raised were annexed with Petition as Annexure P-4 Colly. 7. The total cost of 207 STBs was Rs.2,89,800/- @ 207x Rs.1400/-. Hence, a cause of action had arisen, for which disconnection notice was issued, and ultimately, signals got disconnected and this Petition got filed with above prayer. 8. Inspite of sufficient service by way of publication into newspapers, and filing of Affidavit of service, mentioned in the order, dated 11.04.2018 of this Tribunal, none appeared for Respondent No.1, nor any reply got filed.

9. Whereas Respondent No.2 had appeared and had taken opportunity to file reply, but had not filed reply in this particular Petition, rather the objection was with regard to Privity of Contract, and no liability because of there being no contract with Petitioner. Respondent No.2 is the competitive MSO, having its own independent business, with LCOs affiliated with it. 10. The order to proceed ex-parte was there against Respondent No.1, and even none appeared for Respondent No.1 in Evidence or argument. Hence, in this particular Petition, the issues were not framed by Registrar. Whereas, in another Petitions clubbed together, those were framed. 11. In this ex-parte Evidence, Petitioner filed its Affidavit Evidence of Mr. Harish Kalyani, for and on behalf of Petitioner Company, wherein the true and correct copy of Board of Resolution authorising this witness to depose for company was annexed and proved as Exhibit PW-1. The true and correct copy of agreement, executed between Petitioner and Respondent No.1, annexed as PW-2 with Petition, was annexed with this Affidavit, and was proved on oath, exhibiting it as PW-2.

The true and correct copy of said purchase invoice, proving the cost of STBs @ Rs.1400/- per piece, has been filed, annexed, proved and exhibited as Exhibit PW-3. The true and correct copy of invoices were filed and exhibited as Exhibit PW-4 (Colly). The Statement of Accounts, maintained in usual course of business, by Petitioner Company, and annexed with Petition as Annexure P-5, has been brought on record, as Annexure of this Affidavit Evidence, and it has been proved and exhibited as PW-5 (Colly). The same is with an Affidavit, required under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, specifying the source of withdrawal of this computerised document and data, from where it was withdrawn, making it admissible in Evidence. The demand notice, which was annexed with Petition, had also been filed, along with this Affidavit Evidence. The same has been exhibited. 12. The written submission by Petitioner as well as of Respondent No.2 is on record. 13. Heard Learned Counsel for Petitioner as well as of Respondent No.2. 14. This Tribunal, in many previously decided judgements, had categorically held that there being no privity of contract, in between, Petitioner and competitive MSO, there is no liability of competitive MSO, towards Petitioner, another MSO, for alleged fault of LCO, if any, as there is no contractual relationship, no legal liability and rights, because of no contract, in between.

Competitive MSO may not be fastened with any liability. Hence, the very argument of Respondent No.2 is tenable.

15. Respondent No.1 was the LCO, who had entered in agreement, who had taken the privileges of enjoying services of Petitioner who had received the 207 STBs, as per Challan, and who was under obligation of making payments of outstanding subscription dues, specifically proved by way of Statement of Accounts, had neither appeared, nor filed any reply, nor given any Evidence. Hence, the facts as were there in the Petition, and for which there was onus to prove upon Petitioner, had been fully exhausted by Petitioner, by way of this cogent, uncontroverted Affidavit Evidence of Petitioner. The documents, annexed with Affidavit, are with full reiteration, and corroboration of the contention of pleadings.

16. With regard to the rate of Interest, this Tribunal in many previously decided Judgments, considering the current fiscal scenario, had awarded a Simple Interest of 9% per annum. Hence, the facts and circumstances of this case, permits award of interest, as a Simple Interest @ 9% only.

17. Hence, this Petition merits to be allowed with cost, against Respondent No.1.

ORDER Upon the discussions made above, this Petition is being decreed with cost, against Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, Ajay Shriwas, is being mandated to make deposit in the Tribunal, within the two months of judgment, Rs.3,15,170/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred Seventy Only), towards outstanding subscription dues, as well as cost of 207 STBs @ 1400 per STB, amounting to Rs.2,89,800/- (Rupees Two Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Only), for default of making return of same, alongwith simple interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the 1st April, 2015 to actual date of payment, pendentelite and future, for making payment to Petitioner, failing which the same is to be realised by way of execution of decree. Formal order / decree be got prepared by office, accordingly.

….......……………… (Justice Ram Krishna Gautam) Member 09.07.2026 /SL/