TDSAT Directs Local Cable Operator to Return 123 Set Top Boxes or Pay Rs 1.67 Lakh to Hathway Digital

TDSAT allows Hathway Digital's petition against a West Bengal local cable operator that swapped 123 STBs after migrating to a competing MSO without notice or regulatory compliance.

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has allowed a broadcasting petition filed by Hathway Digital Private Limited against GCN (Mondal Cable TV), a local cable operator based in Hooghly, West Bengal. The Tribunal directed Respondent No. 1 to return 123 set top boxes along with viewing cards in good working condition within two months, or pay compensation of Rs 1,67,280 calculated at a depreciated value of Rs 1,360 per STB, together with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition until actual payment. The competing MSO, M/s Saptak Digital Pvt. Ltd., was absolved of liability on the ground that no privity of contract existed between it and Hathway Digital.

The Dispute Before the Tribunal

Hathway Digital Private Limited is a multi-system operator licensed under the Cable Television Networks Act, with its registered office in Mumbai. Its cable television business was assigned to it from Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited with effect from 1 April 2017 following an internal restructuring. The company subsequently changed its name to Hathway Digital Limited with effect from 3 June 2020.

GCN (Mondal Cable TV), represented through its proprietor Birendra Nath Mondal, is a local cable operator operating out of Tarakeswar, Hooghly district, West Bengal. On the LCO's request, Hathway Digital agreed to provide signals for re-transmission to subscribers in the Hooghly area. The parties entered into a Model Interconnect Agreement, under which Hathway Digital issued 123 set top boxes and viewing cards to the LCO.

The petitioner's case was that Respondent No. 1, without issuing any prior notice and without the consent or approval of Hathway Digital, swapped all 123 STBs and migrated to Respondent No. 2, M/s Saptak Digital Pvt. Ltd., a competing MSO. Hathway Digital alleged this was done in collusion with Respondent No. 2 and in deliberate violation of the TRAI Interconnect Regulations and the terms of the interconnect agreement. A legal notice dated 11 December 2019 was issued calling upon the respondents to return the STBs or pay Rs 1,96,800 at Rs 1,600 per STB. Neither respondent replied to the notice, nor were the STBs returned.

Respondents' Position

Both respondents initially appeared and filed written statements. Respondent No. 1 denied that any written agreement was ever executed and denied that any STBs were handed over to it by Hathway Digital. It further denied any liability for dues or any swapping of STBs.

Respondent No. 2 denied the allegations against it and stated that it had entered into its own interconnect agreement with Respondent No. 1 as a competing MSO transmitting signals through its own system. It contended that there was no privity of contract between itself and Hathway Digital, and that no swapping of STBs could be proved against it. It also denied being in custody of any of the STBs.

Despite filing written statements, neither respondent led any evidence before the Tribunal. No written submissions were filed on their behalf, and no counsel appeared for the respondents at the time of hearing.

Evidence and the Burden of Proof

The Tribunal noted that proceedings before it are civil in nature under the TRAI Act, and that the standard applicable is preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Hathway Digital filed evidence by way of an affidavit of Mr Kalyan Patra, along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and a Board Resolution. The affidavit reiterated the contents of the petition and exhibited the Model Interconnect Agreement. It stated that 123 STBs and viewing cards were issued to Respondent No. 1 in compliance with the interconnect agreement, and placed the cost at Rs 1,600 per STB.

The Tribunal drew on the Supreme Court's ruling in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (AIR 2006 SC 1971) on the shifting of onus once the plaintiff discharges the initial burden, and on Premlata v. Arhant Kumar Jain (AIR 1976 SC 626) for the proposition that where both parties have produced their evidence, the question of burden of proof loses independent significance. It also referred to State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co. (2006) 12 SCC 198 for the principle that a plaintiff must stand on the evidence adduced by it and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defendant.

Since the respondents led no evidence, the petitioner's affidavit stood uncontroverted on the issuance of 123 STBs and the terms of the interconnect agreement.

Depreciated Value and Interest

The Tribunal accepted that the STBs were the exclusive property of Hathway Digital and that Respondent No. 1 was obligated to return them or compensate the petitioner. However, it applied a depreciation of 15% per annum on the STB value, consistent with the approach this Tribunal has taken in similar petitions. The claimed rate of Rs 1,600 per STB was accordingly reduced to Rs 1,360 per STB as the depreciated value. Multiplied across 123 STBs, the total compensation came to Rs 1,67,280.

The Tribunal directed that if Respondent No. 1 fails to restore the STBs and viewing cards within two months, it must pay Rs 1,67,280 along with pendente lite and future simple interest at 9% per annum until the date of actual payment. The Tribunal noted that 9% simple interest is the rate it has consistently applied in such petitions.

No Liability on Competing MSO

On the question of Respondent No. 2's liability, the Tribunal held that there was admittedly no privity of contract between Hathway Digital and M/s Saptak Digital Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal reiterated the settled position it has taken in multiple cases: a competing MSO that has no contractual relationship with the petitioner MSO cannot be held liable for defaults arising out of an interconnect agreement between the petitioner and the LCO. Respondent No. 2 was described as a stranger to the alleged contract between Hathway Digital and Respondent No. 1. No relief was awarded against Respondent No. 2.

Order

The petition was allowed against Respondent No. 1. GCN (Mondal Cable TV) was directed to restore or return all 123 STBs along with viewing cards in good working condition to Hathway Digital within two months of the judgment. In the event of failure to do so, Respondent No. 1 must pay Rs 1,67,280 — calculated at Rs 1,360 per STB after applying 15% per annum depreciation — together with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition until actual payment. The office was directed to prepare a formal order and decree accordingly. No relief was granted against Respondent No. 2. The judgment was pronounced on 19 May 2026 by Justice Ram Krishna Gautam, Member.