X CABLE T V NETWORK Vs. STAR INDIA PVT LTD AND SURYA ENTERTAINMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner working in the name of X-Cable TV Network is a multi-system operator and has filed this petition under Sections 14 and 14A of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. THE Respondent No.1, Star India Pvt. Ltd., is the broadcaster and Respondent No.2, Surya Entertainment is its authorized distributor. It is contended by the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 appointed Respondent No.2 as its distributor on 6th July 2005. On having been appointed the distributor it is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No2. got a blank agreement form signed from it for supply of signals on payment of Rs.75,000/- per month, inclusive of service tax for both Package-1 and Package-2 (new channels). It also contends that at the time when new agreement was signed in August 2005, the Petitioner had requested Respondent No.2 not to charge for the new channels and he was willing to return the decoders for the new channels, which request was rejected by Respondent No.2 and it threatened that in that eventuality all channels broadcasted by Respondent No.1 shall be deactivated. THE Petitioner contends that it had no choice but to succumb to the pressure and the demand. It states that it was receiving signals and regularly paying Rs.75,000/- per month till January 2006. It also states that under pressure from Respondent No.2 it had made some extra payment to the tune of Rs.1,59,000/-. It states that on 17.12.2005 a public notice in daily newspaper 'Punjab Kesari' was published by the respondents stating that channels of Star TV would be disconnected to the Petitioner network because of non-payment of outstanding dues. It further contends that this was a pressure tactics on the part of the Respondents to extract more money for signing the new subscription agreement for the year 2006 and therefore it came to this Tribunal praying for continuation of signals and for directing the Respondents not to disconnect the signals and asking for complete statement of accounts. It has also prayed for direction to the Respondents to withdraw the bouquet of new channels.

(2.) When the case came up before us for the first time, we directed the Respondents to continue the signals as hitherto fore on payment of monthly subscription which was being paid on that date.

(3.) ON the question of subscription fee, the Respondent contends that the agreement dated 6th July 2005 valid through 31st December 2005 is very clear where Bouquet-1 charges are Rs.32.10 per month for 4,400 subscribers and for Bouquet-2, Rs.22/- per month for 2,400 subscribers. While going through the statement of accounts at Annexure R-2, the Respondent contended that the outstanding amount shown is exactly worked out based on this subscription fee as per the Agreement less the amount paid by the Petitioner. It denied that Respondent No.2 had ever agreed for supply of signals at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month for both the bouquets. The Respondent further contended that it was for this outstanding amount of approximately, Rs.7.14 lakhs that the public notice was given to the Petitioner for disconnection of signals. It is stated that the Petitioner is enjoying this supply of signals by paying Rs.75,000/- per month under the interim order of this Tribunal and in turn the outstanding amount has further increased consequent to the directions of this Tribunal. The Respondent also referred to a letter dated 16th December 2005 addressed to the Petitioner informing it about the outstanding amount of Rs.714503.19 which as per the Regulations is one month notice prior to disconnection of signal. This letter is at Annexure R-3 of the reply affidavit.