arun_ajith2007
Regulars
ORDER
This application is moved by the petitioner for modification of order dated 11.4.08 passed by this Tribunal. By the said order, as an interim measure, the respondent was directed to provide signals of One Alliance ( a bouquet of 15 channels minus Ten Sports) mentioned on page-93 of the paper book, to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.67/- per month which was the bouquet rate. I am informed that the said order has been implemented. By the present application, the applicant has said that it was on account of a bonafide mistake that when reference was made to page-93 of the Paper Book, the petitioner agreed to it without realising that at page-93 two rates are mentioned. According to the learned counsel in fact on page-93 rates of bouquet as well as a-la-carte rate of individual
channels are mentioned. Petitioner agreed to page-93 without keeping in mind the distinction between the two rates. In pursuance of the said order dated 11.4.08 the respondent is giving to the petitioner a complete bouquet of channels. The petitioner wants only one channel out of the bouquet and, therefore, he seeks modification of the said order.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent denies the stand taken by the petitioner. He has drawn my attention to prayers contained in the main petition where the reference is to supply of channels on a-la-carte basis. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent submits that there was no scope for any mistake on the part of the petitioner's counsel. They wanted all the channels and that is why they opted for the bouquet. According to the respondent, the present application is an afterthought in view of the fact that only one channel is very popular these days which is telecasting the IPL cricket matches.
I have considered these rival contentions. I have put it to the learned counsel for respondent that is it not possible for the petitioner to add channels already being taken by it or give up some? Can he not ask for change of terms and give up the bouquet in order to prefer only a single channel? No answer is forthcoming to this question. It follows that petitioner can seek change of terms. In view of this I relieve the petitioner of the obligation to accept all the channels under the bouquet of the respondent. I direct the respondent to supply the channel SET MAX to the petitioner on a-la-carte basis as per rate mentioned on page-93. The petitioner will pay for the same as per the rate declared by the respondent. However, uptil today the petitioner will pay the respondent the rate of entire bouquet because the respondent has been supplying the entire bouquet as per rate mentioned at page-93 under this Tribunal's order dated 11.4.2008.
The M.A. stands disposed of.
The learned counsel for petitioner has, on instructions, made a submission before me that the petitioners are accepting all the terms of RIO. However, they want the same on a-la-carte.
Let the petition be listed on 19th May,2008.
source:TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
On 19.5.2008
Counsel for petitioner submits that the matter be heard today. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has yet to file a reply on merits. For this he wants to rely on the fact that so far there has been no direction from this Tribunal directing the respondent to file reply let reply be filed within 4 weeks as prayed. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within 2 weeks thereafter. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid for the supply of the full bouquet upto 08.05.2008 without prejudice to the petitioner's rights and contentions. This stand of the petitioner is however, controverted by the learned counsel for respondent
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
List for hearing on 15.07.2008.
source:TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
This application is moved by the petitioner for modification of order dated 11.4.08 passed by this Tribunal. By the said order, as an interim measure, the respondent was directed to provide signals of One Alliance ( a bouquet of 15 channels minus Ten Sports) mentioned on page-93 of the paper book, to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.67/- per month which was the bouquet rate. I am informed that the said order has been implemented. By the present application, the applicant has said that it was on account of a bonafide mistake that when reference was made to page-93 of the Paper Book, the petitioner agreed to it without realising that at page-93 two rates are mentioned. According to the learned counsel in fact on page-93 rates of bouquet as well as a-la-carte rate of individual
channels are mentioned. Petitioner agreed to page-93 without keeping in mind the distinction between the two rates. In pursuance of the said order dated 11.4.08 the respondent is giving to the petitioner a complete bouquet of channels. The petitioner wants only one channel out of the bouquet and, therefore, he seeks modification of the said order.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent denies the stand taken by the petitioner. He has drawn my attention to prayers contained in the main petition where the reference is to supply of channels on a-la-carte basis. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent submits that there was no scope for any mistake on the part of the petitioner's counsel. They wanted all the channels and that is why they opted for the bouquet. According to the respondent, the present application is an afterthought in view of the fact that only one channel is very popular these days which is telecasting the IPL cricket matches.
I have considered these rival contentions. I have put it to the learned counsel for respondent that is it not possible for the petitioner to add channels already being taken by it or give up some? Can he not ask for change of terms and give up the bouquet in order to prefer only a single channel? No answer is forthcoming to this question. It follows that petitioner can seek change of terms. In view of this I relieve the petitioner of the obligation to accept all the channels under the bouquet of the respondent. I direct the respondent to supply the channel SET MAX to the petitioner on a-la-carte basis as per rate mentioned on page-93. The petitioner will pay for the same as per the rate declared by the respondent. However, uptil today the petitioner will pay the respondent the rate of entire bouquet because the respondent has been supplying the entire bouquet as per rate mentioned at page-93 under this Tribunal's order dated 11.4.2008.
The M.A. stands disposed of.
The learned counsel for petitioner has, on instructions, made a submission before me that the petitioners are accepting all the terms of RIO. However, they want the same on a-la-carte.
Let the petition be listed on 19th May,2008.
source:TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
On 19.5.2008
Counsel for petitioner submits that the matter be heard today. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has yet to file a reply on merits. For this he wants to rely on the fact that so far there has been no direction from this Tribunal directing the respondent to file reply let reply be filed within 4 weeks as prayed. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within 2 weeks thereafter. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid for the supply of the full bouquet upto 08.05.2008 without prejudice to the petitioner's rights and contentions. This stand of the petitioner is however, controverted by the learned counsel for respondent
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
List for hearing on 15.07.2008.
source:TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
We won't be forced to take the full bouquet of 