KAL CABLES PVT. LTD vs JAI VINAYAGAR CABLE on 15 April 2014

ORDER

M/s Kal Cable Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, is a multi-system operator, operating in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu. It has filed this batch of 28 petitions, each against a cable operator from whom the petitioner seeks recovery of different sums of money as dues of monthly subscription fees. None of the 28 cable operators, respondents in this batch of petitions, appeared despite service of notice. Hence, all the petitions in the batch were proceeded with ex parte. As all the 28 cases are based on similar facts, with the exception of the amounts of money claimed and, in a few cases the date of disconnection of signals, all the 28 petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

For the sake of convenience, the relevant facts pertaining to the 28 petitions are arranged in a tabular form which is reproduced below: S N Pet. No. Name of Respondent Natur e of dues Claimed amount (Rs.) Date of Agree- ment Subs. agreement expired on Date of Demand Notice Date of Legal Notice Due as on rate of interest on amount claimed supply of signals disconn- ected on State ment of Accou nt -PG no. Witness depositi on- Pg no. Amt mentioned in Statement of Account

856 C of 2012 Prasanna Cable TV Subs. fee 168438/- 20/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 16/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 46-48 J. Rajesh (pg. no. 3, Para

168438/-

857 C of 2012 Thayar Cable Network Subs. fee 422160/- 3/6/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 25/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 59-74 J. Rajesh (pg. no. 3, Para

422160/-

858 C of 2012 Cable Network Subs. fee 129232/- 21/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 10/4/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 45-47 J. Rajesh (pg. no. 4, Para

129232/-

860 C of 2012 Saravana Cable Vision Subs. fee 218415/- 21/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 25/04/12 30/09/11 18%

J. Rajesh (pg. no. 3, Para

218415/-

862 C of 2012 National vision and Ors Subs. fee 4281320/- 20/10/10 30/09/11 3/11/11 10/4/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 61-67 J. Rajesh (pg 4 Para 8) 4281320/-

863 C of 2012 Sai Baba Cable Vision Subs. fee 218415/- 21/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 20/04/12 3/10/11 18%

J. Rajesh (pg 3 Para 8) 218415/-

864 C of 2012 Chellamut hu Cable Subs. fee 270937/- 19/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 16/04/12 31/08/11 18% 30/09/11 57-64 J. Rajesh (pg 3 Para 8) 270937/-

865 C of 2012 Shankara Catv Systems Subs. fee 911158/- 3/6/11 30/09/11 8/11/11 20/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 57-68 J. Rajesh (pg 4 Para 8) 911158/-

866 C of 2012 N Kannan Cable Subs. fee 382927/- 2/6/11 30/09/11 8/11/11 16/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 62-67 J. Rajesh (pg 3 Para 8) 388927/-

867 C of 2012 Valar Gokulam Satellite Promotors Subs. fee 4662615/- 18/10/10 30/09/11 3/11/11 10/4/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 60-65 J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 4662615/-

868 C of 2012 Cheraan Cable Vision Subs. fee 881765/- 23/10/10 30/09/11 3/11/11 6/6/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 59-63 J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 881765/-

872 C of 2012 MRS Cable Vision Subs. fee 124894/- 8/11/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 16/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 50-53 J. Rajesh (pg 3, Para 8) 124894/-

873 C of 2012 Sundaram Satellite System Subs. fee 239814/- 15/10/10 30/09/11 3/11/11 6/6/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 59-64 J. Rajesh (pg 3, Para 8) 239814/-

920 C of 2012 Jai Vinayagar Cable Subs. fee 244005/- 26/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 20/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 57-70 J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 244005/-

921 C of 2012 SVC Cable-II Subs. fee 207364/- 20/12/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 16/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11

J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 207364/-

922 C of 2012 Venkatesh ah Vision Subs. fee 532882/- 25/10/10 30/09/11 3/11/11 6/6/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 61-66 J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 532882/-

923 C of 2012 Raj Vinayaga Vision Subs. fee 160604/- 4/6/11 30/09/11 8/11/11 16/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 59-65 J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 160604/-

924 C of 2012 Channel-

Subs. fee 542858/- 26/11/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 20/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 56-72 J. Rajesh (pg 3, Para 8) 542858/-

925 C of 2012 Om shri Ram Cable Vision Subs. fee 218415/- 21/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 20/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11

J. Rajesh (pg 3, Para 8) 218415/-

926 C of 2012 Venkatesh awara Cable Subs. fee 218415/- 21/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 20/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11

J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 218415/-

927 C of 2012 Mahalax mi Cable Subs. fee 218415/- 21/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 20/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11

J. Rajesh (pg 3, Para 8) 218415/-

957 C of 2012 SVC Cable Systems -I Subs. fee 143434/- 20/12/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 12/6/12 3/10/11 18%

J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 143434/-

125 C of 2013 Phoenix Network Subs. fee 416394/- 29/11/10 30/09/11 4/11/11 6/4/12 2/9/11 18% 30/09/11

J. Rajesh (pg 3, Para 8) 416394/-

127 C of 2013 Amman Cable Subs. fee 262886/- 27/10/10 30/09/11 3/11/11 1/6/12 30/08/11 18% 30/09/11 59-64 J. Rajesh (pg 4, Para 8) 262886/-

128 C of 2013 Shri Hari Cable Vision and 2 ors. Subs. fee 387492/- 12/10/10 30/09/11 3/11/11 6/6/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 54-59 J. Rajesh (pg.3, Para 8) 413646/-

129 C of 2013 Anu Cables Subs. fee 591845/- 12/10/10 30/09/11 3/11/11 9/5/12 30/08/11 18% 30/09/11 55-60 J. Rajesh (pg.4, Para 8) 591845/-

130 C of 2013 Shri Rock City Cable Subs. fee 269719/- 17/11/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 25/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 57-66 J. Rajesh (pg. no. 4, Para

269719/-

131 C of 2013 Balaji Cable Subs. fee 301488/- 21/10/10 30/09/11 8/11/11 16/04/12 30/09/11 18% 30/09/11 56-60 J. Rajesh (pg. no. 3, Para

301488/-

Column no.2 of the table gives the number of petition and column no.3, the name of the respondent, the local cable operator; column no.5 states the amount due against each of the 28 respondents; column no.6 gives the dates of agreements with the local cable operators. From column no.7, it would appear that though the agreements were executed on different dates, all the agreements in the 28 cases came to end on 30 September 2011. Column no.10 shows that with the exception of 3 cases, the supply of signals to the cable operators in the remaining 25 cases was discontinued on the date of expiry of the agreements; in petitions nos.860(C)/2012 (at sr.no. 4 of the table), 863(C)/2012 (at sr.no.6 of the table) and 957(C)/2012 (at sr.no.23 of the table), the supply of signals was discontinued on 31 October 2011 i.e., after one month of the expiry of the agreements. Column no.8 gives the dates on which demand notices were sent to the respondents and column no.9, the dates on which legal notices were sent to them. The petitioner has claimed the amount due along with interest @ 18% from the date the amount became due till the date of the filing of the petition.

In each petition copies of the subscription agreements, copies of monthly invoices along with proof of service, copies of the respective statements of account and copies of the demand letter and the legal notice are enclosed as annexures. In support of its claims, the petitioner examined one J. Rajesh as a common witness in all the cases. J Rajesh is the authorized signatory of the petitioner company and works in the company as the General Manager (Operations). He duly proved the documents produced by the petitioner in support of its claims against the different respondents. Some extracts from the witness’ deposition in one of the cases (Petition no.856(C)/2012) are as under: “4. That the petitioners company a Multi System Operator in Trichy District of Tamil Nadu. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Company through me, against the respondent (who is a cable operator) for the recovery of outstanding subscription charges amounting to Rs.1,68,438/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Eight only), which became due against the respondent on account of consuming signals from the petitioner’s head-end, in the areas mentioned in the schedule attached to the franchisee agreement dated 20/10/2010 (Copy of this franchisee agreement dated 20/10/2010 is already on record and placed before this Tribunal as Annexure P-1 along with the petition. The same may be exhibit as Ex. PW1/2.

5. xxxxxxxx

6. That the respondent on 20/10/2010, entered into a franchisee Agreement/Subscription Agreement with the petitioner for distribution of petitioner’s signals in the areas mentioned herein above, on the monthly lump sum payment of Rs.50,800/-. This relationship between the parties continued till September 2011. The petitioner continuously provided signals from its network to the respondent till September 2011. So, as per this agreement between the parties the respondent was mandated to pay to the petitioner, monthly subscription charges of Rs.50,800/- excluding taxes in advance, on or before 10th day of every calendar month, as per clause 1(b) of the subscription agreement dated 20/10/2010.

7. That on the basis of aforesaid agreement, the respondent continuously enjoyed the signals of TV Channels from the petitioner network up to September 2011 and during this period, the petitioner was continuously raising and serving invoices upon the respondent on regular basis. But the respondent was irregular in making payment of monthly subscription charges [A copy of monthly invoices along with proof of service are enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-3 collectively. The same may be exhibit Ex.PW1/3(1) to PW1/3(28) respectively].

8. That the erratic and defaulted payment by the respondent has accumulated to an outstanding of Rs.1,68,438/- (Rs. One Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Eight only). (A copy of statement of account is enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-4, the same may be exhibit as Ex.PW 1/4).

9. That the petitioner vide its reminder dated 08/11/2011 demanded from the respondent, this outstanding due subscription amount of Rs.1,68,438/-, which, otherwise became and payable as on 30/09/2011. This reminder letter Dt. 08/11/2011 was dispatched by the petitioner on 11/11/2011. But, the respondent not even bothered to reply to this letter Dt. 08/11/2011, of the petitioner. (A copy of letter dated 08/11/2011 is enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-5, the same may be exhibit Ex. PW1/5).”

The above extract from the witness’s deposition, as quoted above, is by way of sample and it may be stated here that the witness made identical statements in all cases, of course, with variations in regard to the amounts due and other relevant specifics.

The deposition of the witness remains unchallenged and there is no reason not to accept its veracity.

In light of the discussions made above, we accept the petitioner’s claims and ex parte allow all the 28 petitions. The office is directed to draw up decrees against each of the respondents separately for the sums mentioned in column no.5 against them. The decretal amount will also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment. Since cases are proceeded ex parte, there will be no order as to costs.

………………. (Aftab Alam) Chairperson

……………….. (Kuldip Singh) Member /sks/