M/S GUNTUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK PRIVATE LTD Vs ESWARA CABLE VISION
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/61/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the defendant cannot be served by registered post, because the cover is returned endorsed "left without instructions," the Tribunal may direct substituted service by publication in newspapers under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where the respondent then fails to appear, the Tribunal may proceed ex parte. A claim for arrears of subscription charges is recoverable only for those instalments that fall within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act, counted back from the date of filing. Instalments falling due before that period are not payable, and the decree is confined to the amount so admissible, with interest computed on that amount. An uncontested claim supported by an affidavit of the petitioner's officer, verifying the account against the records and certified true copies of the underlying documents, may be accepted as proof of the debt, and a decree may be passed on it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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.
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.
5. As per our Orders dated 28th May, 2010 we had posted the matter for ex-parte 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 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 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
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free