The petitioner before us is a Multi Service Operator. It had entered into an agreement with the respondent a content aggregator on or about 24.7.2009 for the town Gangavati; the subscription fee wherefor was fixed at Rs. 75, 017.36 paise. The said agreement did not contain any name of the LCO to whom the petitioner was retransmitting signals, transmitted to it by the respondent. For the year 2009-10, according to the petitioner, a blank agreement was got signed bearing No. K024430. It appears that the said agreement was sent to the petitioner by the respondent herein together with a letter dated 30.8.2010 wherein the area of operation of the petitioner is said to have been reduced to Jayanagar, Pampanagar and Kalgudi areas of the aforementioned town of Gangavati. In the said agreement for the first time, the name of two cable operators appear i.e Siddappa and Shankar. It, however, appears from a letter issued by the petitioner being dated 30.10.2010 that he had been retransmitting signals to several cable operators out of which five cable operators have migrated to the networks of the Respondent 2&3, one of them being the said Siddappa.
The case of the petitioner is that two MSOs had started their operations in the aforementioned town and had been offering signals to the cable operators and the subscribers @ Rs. 50/-. The petitioner had written several letters to the respondent herein in terms whereof a request was made for down-gradation on the aforementioned premise. The petitioner further contended that it is difficult to proceed with that the petitioner had agreed to a sum of Rs. 82,547/- by the aforementioned agreement dated 23.3.2010 Although the area of operation had been reduced and he had been asked to supply the signals only to two cable operators.
It, however, stands admitted that the petitioner was served with a notice in terms of the regulation 4.1 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004 as amended from time to time as also a public notice on or about 9.11.2010 The petitioner protested thereagainst by its letter dated 16.11.2010 stating:
“I have been writing letters after letters to you since July 2010 but you have never answered. You know that when we had signed the agreement in March 2010, we had agreed that I will provide signals to the entire area of Gangavati, as in the 2009 agreement. I had signed the copy of the agreement and you had taken it to get it signed from your senior people. You remember that the body of the agreement was blank. However, when you sent the signed copy back to me, you reduced the area of my cable network to Jayanagar, Pampanagar and Kalgudi. Also, you said that I have only two cable operators - Siddappa and Shankar. You know that I have more cable operators. You are not being fair to me.
When I have been paying more money than I paid before, how can my area be reduced from entire Gangavati to only three areas.”
When the matter came up before this Tribunal on 1.12.2010, we requested the respondent to file a brief reply touching the merit of the interim prayer. The same has not been filed. It is in the aforementioned premise by a reason of our order dated 7.12.2010, we directed as under:
“In the meantime, it is directed that the interim order shall continue subject to the petitioner's paying to the respondent a sum of Rs. 75,000/- without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Such payment shall be paid within one week.
We hope and trust in the meantime as suggested by Ms. Agnihotri and having regard to the statement made before us on 01.12.2010, that the parties shall negotiate.
We also place on record that it is very fairly stated at the Bar that if the petitioner and two more MSOs have started functioning within the area of operation of the petitioner, the petitioner in stead and in place of Rs. 80,000/- towards subscription fees, the petitioner would be ready and willing to pay Rs. 45,000-50,000/- per month on that account.”
It, however, stands admitted that the petitioner has not complied with the said order. Only that a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 75000/- was sent on 30.12.2010 to the respondent which has been received by the Guard of the respondent on 7.1.2011 and by the officer concerned on 10.1.2011 It has been so recorded in our order dated 10.1.2011 According to the petitioner, however, it had sent a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 40000/- on 6.1.2011, which according to the respondent, has not yet been received. Ms. Agnihotri, however, has placed before us a copy of the Demand Draft dated 6.1.2011
The respondent, for reasons best known to them, has not filed reply. On that ground alone, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the basis of the pleadings filed by the petitioner and the contents contended therein.
At this juncture, it is difficult for us to accept that the subscriber base of the petitioner has been reduced to such an extent that the petitioner would be liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 40000/- instead and in place of Rs. 82547/-. Moreover, the petitioner has also not complied with our order dated 1.12.2010 and its connection has been disconnected on 29.12.2010 Furthermore, the agreement between the parties came to an end. There is also a dispute as to whether the petitioner has paid the subscription fee for the month of November 2010 or not.
Upon considering the contentions raised before us, we are of the opinion that the respondents should be directed to restore the supply of signals of the petitioner on receipt of a sum of Rs. 82547/- from the month of December 2010, subject of course to the adjustment of the subscription fee for the month during which it has not received supply of any signals.
We furthermore direct that the petitioner, in the event this order is complied with by it, shall continue to pay the aforementioned amount of subscription fee. Any payment made by the petitioner in terms of this order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to any other or further order which may be passed by this Tribunal. On receipt of the balance sum from the petitioner namely Rs. 42000/- and odd, the respondent shall restore the supply of signals within 24 hours.
The petitioner may take fresh steps for service of notice upon the Respondents 2&3. It is made clear that hearing of this petition shall be expedited. The respondent must file its reply within one week, subject of course to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/-. Rejoinder to the reply be filed within one week thereafter.
We further direct the parties to meet at the respondent's Bangalore office on 19.1.2011 for negotiations.
Put up the matter on 31.1.2011 as already fixed.
………………
(S.B Sinha)
Chairperson
………………
(G.D Gaiha)
Member
………………
(P.K Rastogi)
Member