MEDIA PRO ENTERPRISE INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs MADHUMATI CABLE NETWORK
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/201/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the respondent does not appear and the petitioner's documents (the interconnect agreement, invoices and statement of account) are proved by a witness on oath, and the respondent does not rebut them, the claim under that agreement is accepted for the term of the agreement. Where an interconnect agreement has expired and no renewal agreement exists, a claim for subscription fees for signals supplied after its expiry is unsustainable, because such supply would violate clause 4A of the Interconnect Regulations. Recovery is therefore confined to the period during which the agreement subsisted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ORDER By Aftab Alam, Chairperson – The petitioner, M/s Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. (Media Pro), has filed this petition for recovery of the sum of Rs.8,03,125/-, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the petitioner as dues of subscription fee.
According to Media Pro, the respondent (a local cable operator) executed an interconnect agreement with it on 20.06.2012 for supply of its signals to the respondent for retransmission. The agreement commenced from 01.04.2012 and came to end on 31.03.2013. In terms of the agreement, the respondent was required to pay Rs.99,000.66p to Media Pro as the monthly subscription fee.
It is the case of Media Pro that in terms of the agreement it supplied its signals to the respondent until the supply was disconnected on 18.10.2013. It raised invoices for payment of monthly subscription fee but the respondent defaulted in payments and as a result the dues of subscription fee accumulated to Rs.8,03,125/-, for the recovery of which this petition is filed.
The respondent did not appear despite service of notice and hence, the petition has proceeded ex parte.
Media Pro, in support of its claim, has examined a witness, Mr. Amiya Ranjan Pati who worked as DGM (Credit Risk Manager) for the petitioner. The witness has supported the petitioner’s claim. He proved the agreement dated 20.06.2012 by the respondent with Media Pro which was marked as Exhibit PW- 1/1. He also proved the invoices raised by the Media Pro which were collectively marked as Exhibit PW-1/2. The witness also proved the statement of account showing the outstanding payable by the respondent which was marked as Exhibit PW-1/3.
The pleadings and the evidences, in so far Media Pro’s claim based on the interconnect agreement dated 20.06.2012 is concerned, remain un-rebutted by the respondent.
Therefore, there is no reason not to accept the claim of Media Pro for the term of the agreement that came to end on 31.03.2013.
The claim of Media Pro, however, extends to 18.10.2013 as it is claimed that it continued to supply signals to the respondent till that date. In the absence of any renewal agreement, the claim beyond 31.03.2013 would be unsustainable as the supply of signals, even if in fact made, would be in violation of clause 4A of the Interconnect Regulations.
For the reasons discussed above, we accept the claim of Media Pro upto 31.03.2013 and hold it entitled to recover its dues upto that date from the respondent.
Media Pro is directed to file a computation of accounts upto 31.03.2013 within two weeks from today for the office to draw-up a decree accordingly. The decretal amount will also carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the actual payment.
………………. (AftabAlam) Chairperson
……………….. (Kuldip Singh) Member sks
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