Miss Lucy
Try free
← All judgments

NEO SPORTS BROADCASTING PVT LTD Vs SIDDHARTH MEGHA CHANNELS PVT. LTD., A.P.

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal18 June 2012HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA, CHAIRPERSON HON BLE MR. P.K.RASTOGI, MEMBER

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A claimant seeking recovery of subscription fees under a subscription agreement establishes its entitlement by adducing affidavit evidence of supply of the services under the agreement, supported by the computer-generated log report, the statement of account and ledger, and proof of service of the invoices. Where the respondent does not appear and the matter proceeds ex parte, the claim is decided on that evidence, and the tribunal must be satisfied that it establishes the sum claimed. The tribunal has discretion to award interest at a rate lower than the rate claimed, where it considers in the facts and circumstances of the case that the interest of justice is so served. Pendente lite and future interest may be awarded at the same reduced rate until realisation. Where the respondent does not appear, no order as to costs is made.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHIDated 18th June, 2012Petition No.281(C) of 2011Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi …PetitionerVs.Siddharth Megha Channels Pvt. Ltd., A.P. …RespondentBEFORE:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA, CHAIRPERSONHON’BLE MR. P.K.RASTOGI, MEMBERFor Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Mehta, AdvocateP.K.Rastogi, MemberORDER

This petition has been filed by the Petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,87,104/- being the outstanding subscription fees along with interest.

2. A notice was issued to the Respondent. However, as nobody appeared inspite of the service of the notice, this petition was set for ex-parte hearing.

3. The Petitioner is a broadcaster and the Respondent is a multi system operator. Both the parties entered into an agreement dated 1.10.2008. Accordingly, the Respondent was authorized to transmit signals of the Petitioner’s channels namely Neo Cricket and Neo Sports in the parts of Ananthpur, Andhra Pradesh at a monthly subscription fees of Rs. 13,326/-. This agreement was valid for a period from 1.10.2008 to 30.9.2009. Again the parties entered into another Subscription Agreement on 23.1.2009 for the monthly subscription fees of Rs. 14,258.80. This agreement was valid for the period from 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2010.

4. The Petitioner has filed affidavit of its witnesses by way of evidence. Shri Ranjan Sharma who is the Executive (Legal) of the Petitioner Company has stated in his affidavit stated that under the said agreements executed on 1.10.2008 and on 23.1.2009, the signals of the Petitioner’s channel were supplied to the Respondent. He has also enclosed a copy of the log report generated by the computer showing the supply of signals to the Respondent for the said period. Supply of signals to the Respondent’s network were terminated on 23.8.2010 as it did not clear the outstanding amount of the Petitioner.

5. The witness has also enclosed a copy of the Statement of Account and ledger account. The Statement of Account shows that an amount of Rs.1,87,103.76 is still due from the Respondent.

6. One Shri Shriram Assistant Manager also submitted an affidavit wherein he stated that the invoices were duly served upon the Respondent in the first week of month of each invoice under his instructions and supervision.

7. Keeping in view the nature of evidence brought on record by the parties, we are satisfied that the Petitioner has made out a case for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,87,104/- towards the arrears of subscription fees payable by the Respondent herein. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be sub-served, if in stead and in place of interest @ 24% p.a., as has been claimed by the Petitioner, interest @ 9% p.a. is allowed.

The Respondent furthermore shall also be liable to pay interest at the same rate pendente lite and future till realization.

8. This Petition is decreed in part and to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. However, as nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.

……………..... (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson

.……………… (P. K. Rastogi) Member K.D.

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