JUDGMENT : SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. The suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the entire World Exclusive Internet Webcasting rights over the suit schedule movies; for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the suit schedule movies; and for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as damages. In addition, the plaintiff prayed for costs. 2. After the suit was filed, a memorandum of compromise dated 20.12.2024 was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. In terms thereof, the first defendant agreed not to telecast 14 suit schedule mentioned movies on any platform, such as Youtube or other OTT platforms. The first defendant also agreed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation. This amount was paid to the plaintiff. Based on this compromise, the plaintiff agreed to the dismissal of the suit against the first defendant. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 08.01.2025, the suit was disposed of as against the first defendant in terms of memorandum of compromise dated 20.12.2024. After noticing that suit summons was served on the second defendant on 16.05.2024 and that the second defendant had not entered appearance in spite of service of suit summons, the second defendant was set ex parte on the same date. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiff adduced evidence through himself. The plaintiff filed proof affidavit dated 22.01.2025. In course of examination-in-chief on 22.01.2025, 12 documents were exhibited through the plaintiff/PW1 as Exs.P1 to P12. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to Ex.P7, which is an agreement dated 27.01.2020. He pointed out that all the 21 movies, which form the subject of the suit, were assigned under the said agreement to the plaintiff by Sureshkumar Agarwal, Proprietor, Siddharth Electronics. He also referred to Ex.P11, which is a letter dated 22.03.2021 from the second defendant to the plaintiff. On such basis, he submitted that the second defendant agreed to not broadcast the suit schedule movies as a gesture of goodwill. He also submitted that the second defendant agreed to withdraw the disputed movies completely, if the said defendant finds that the rights of the plaintiff supersedes that of the second defendant. In spite of issuing such reply on 22.03.2021, learned counsel contends that such action was not taken by the second defendant. 5. He also submitted that the second defendant agreed to withdraw the disputed movies completely, if the said defendant finds that the rights of the plaintiff supersedes that of the second defendant. In spite of issuing such reply on 22.03.2021, learned counsel contends that such action was not taken by the second defendant. 5. In order to establish the claims made in the suit, the plaintiff exhibited 12 documents. The plaintiff's rights in the suit schedule movies are traced from Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P4 is the document under which the plaintiff's immediate predecessor-in-interest, Siddharth Electronics, acquired rights in these movies. The confirmation letter given by Santha Films to the laboratory and the lab confirmation letter have been exhibited as Exs.P5 and P6. As contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff, Ex.P7 discloses that the said Siddharth Electronics assigned its rights to the plaintiff perpetually upon receipt of a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-. 6. On examining the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and in the absence of contra evidence from the second defendant, the claim for declaration and permanent injunction stands proved. As regards the claim for damages, Ex.P7 discloses that a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was paid as consideration by the plaintiff to the assignor. Such consideration is in respect of 21 movies. In the plaint, the plaintiff asserts that his copyright was infringed with regard to about 14 movies. The amount claimed as damages is roughly 70% of the consideration paid for the assignment, and qualifies as reasonable compensation for loss. In these circumstances, the claim of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages also stands proved. The plaintiff is, however, not entitled to interest on this sum at 24% per annum since it is a claim for damages and there is no contractual rate. Interest is therefore, awarded at 6% per annum. As the successful party, the plaintiff is entitled to costs. The second defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff an aggregate sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards court fees, lawyer's fees and other expenses. 7. In the result, the suit is decreed against the second defendant in terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 13 of the plaint, but the relief of damages shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of realization. The second defendant shall also pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as costs to the plaintiff.