PVR Cinemas

adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
edited June 2013 in Tour and Travels
(Appeal against the order dated 11.03.2008 passed by District Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi in complaint case no.107/2005)

M/s PVR Limited,

Having its Registered Office at

61, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,

New Delhi-110057.



Shri Vinit Mahata, Advocate.


Manjula Jinda,

Flat no. 23, Dhaula Kuan,

Officer Enclave Cantt.,

New Delhi.



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President.

M.L. Sahni, Member

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the


2. To be referred to the reporter or not?


1. In this appeal, order dated 11.03.2008 passed by District Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, has been challenged by the OP-M/s P.V.R. (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant).

2. The facts, in short, are that Mrs. Manjula (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ) went to see a Movie at PVR Metropolitan in Gurgaon, of the Appellant in December, 2003. Being a diabetese , she wanted to have Diet Coke, during interval. Diet Coke was not available at the Snack-Bar of the Cinema. Respondent, therefore, went outside and purchased one bottle of Diet Coke from outside the Cinema Hall. However, she was not allowed to take it inside the Cinema Hall, by the Security Guard. She was told that eatables from outside were not allowed. She made a complaint to the Manger of the OP/Appellant. The Manager, also did not oblige her. She, therefore, wanted to return the Ticket and asked for refund, which was declined saying that tickets once sold are not refundable , as per the terms, printed on the reverse of the Ticket. She filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. The appellant , when appeared in response to the Notice, issued by the District Forum, of the complaint, pleaded that the prices of the tickets at Cinema Theaters are controlled by the DCP, Licensing, but the Appellant has been given a license to exhibit films at its Theater and the operation of the PVR started in May, 2003. On account of security, hygiene, safety and health of other patterns M/s PVR Ltd. Is maintaining a snack bar for its patterns and sales of quality products are effected from this counter. In addition, in order to provide snacks and some small refreshments to its patterns the OP/Appellant had made arrangement of a snack counter where from it is effecting sales of quality products. In order to effect these sales the OP is statutorily enjoying to get requisite permission. The OP/Appellant is additionally required to obtain permission and license from the DCP, Licensing which after stringent inspection and scrutiny grants license which is known as eating house license.

4. The Ld. District Forum, after hearing both the parties observed, that the “Complainant(Respondent) purchased Diet Coke from outside because she was compelled to do so as the snack bar of PVR does not keep any diet coke for sale. Complainant is diabetic patient and she felt like taking Coke, she takes the precaution to take only diet coke so that her blood sugar level does not increase. It is unfortunate that security guards have not been instructed to allow the sealed articles of recognized brand. When the bottle of diet coke is properly sealed, what could be the reason to disallow the same. OP is trying to take shelter that for the purposes of health of its patterns and for security reasons they do not permit any eatables from outside

and snack bar is run in hygienic conditions. It is a matter to laugh at. The conduct of the OP/Appellant is not free from doubt in as much as a serious suspicion arises that the Cinema owners have a share in the sale by the snack bar or they charge exorbitantly as rent from PVR snack bar and to recover more than the MRP printed on the article. If heatlh is the reason then what is the difference between the coke sold by the snack bar and the diet coke being brought from outside. Could it be used as a Bomb? If that possibility weighed in the mind of security then they have the instrument to check the object whether the same can be used as a terrorist activity. In any case, the Appellant/OP should not in future refuse to bring sealed articles from outside having the brand name and OP should not have refused to return the price of ticket”.

5. Then, the Ld. Forum passed the following order, which has been now impugned before us :-

“1. The OP will return the price of Ticket Rs. 150/- to the complainant(Respondent).

2. For causing mental agony and deficiency in service, the OP(Appellant) will pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant(respondent) as compensation and in future the OP(Appellant) will not disallow any Cine goer to take inside sealed articles with brand name.

3. OP(Appellant) will pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant”.

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone-through the material on record. The Appellants have filed copy of their detailed reply duly supported by Affidavits of Shri N.C. Gupta, Chief Corporate Affaris Legal. This Affidavit was filed before the District Forum wherein Shri N.C. Gupta solemnly affirmed that the accompanying reply may be read as part of his Affidavit, which has not been reproduced to avoid proxility.

7. In reply, the Appellant had alleged, inter-alia, that the Respondent alongwith two other complainants of her family had filed similar complaint before the District Forum-VII at Shekh Sarai, II, which were dismissed as withdrawn. Particulars of those complaints were given as below :-

a) OC no. 42/04 titled Ekta Jindal Vs Priya Village Roadshow

b) OC no. 43/04 titled Manjula Jindal Vs Priya Village Boardhwo

c) OC no. 44/04 titled Saranya Aggarwal Vs Priya Village. Roadhow

8. A copy of earlier complaint of the Respondent bearing No. 43/04, was also annexed to their reply as Annexure A-1. The Ld. District Forum has made no reference to this fact pleaded by the Appellant before them. Further , the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the contention of the Appellant as stated in reply to para 3 to 5 of the complaint. An extract therefrom is reproduced below :

“The falsity of the complaint is writ large from the fact that PVR Ltd. Is selling products of M/s Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. Diet Pepsi is one of the products which is freely available at all theatres run by PVR Ltd. including PVR Metropolitan at Gurgaon. There are no particulars and the complaint is lacking in all material particulars. The allegations are false and concocted . There was no restriction upon the complainant for consuming Diet Pepsi if she desired any diet drink. There is no evidence to support any of the false averments made. No incident as alleged has taken place at the hall. It is respectfully submitted that no eatables or even water bottles are permitted at any public place such as auditoriums, etc. Even the Siri Fort Auditorium does not permit , even transparent water bottle from being carried into the auditorium and the same have to be thrown outside the main gate. Additionally, for the aforesaid reasons of personal safety and security of the cinema as well as other patrons and public at large the restrictions imposed are reasonable and justified. Additionally, if the restrictions were not imposed it would enable unscrupulous people to bring adulterated and contaminated food into the theatre and thereby endanger the lives of other patrons as well as bring disrepute to the theatres of PVR Ltd. Such restrictions are reasonably imposed for not only security reasons but for reasons of hygiene and health of public at large. Furthermore, the same are necessary keeping in view the fact that the counter etc. are not public counters or public places. Such restrictions are reasonably imposed by all restaurants, snack bars, hotels etc. Moreover, no patron is permitted to leave and repeatedly enter as is being alleged in the instant case. The allegations are false and averments are defamatory intended to bring disrepute to the cinema business of PVR Ltd., which reserves the right to take appropriate action for defamation against the complaint”.

“There is full compliance of every statutory provision, rule, etc. All receipts are duly and immediately accounted for in the records of the PVR Limited. It is respectfully submitted that the period of intermission is so brief and also patrons are curious to see the advertisement being displayed inside the theatre and additionally there is heavy demand for the products that almost no patron chooses to take the receipt. The price charged is only the price displayed in the price list of the cinema. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant has fraudulently enclosed a photocopy of what is being reflected as a price list/menu. The photocopy supplied shows that is a photocopy of a document, which is torn and has been deliberately tampered with. PVR Ltd. disputes that the same relates to PVR Metropolitan or any other cinema. The document has been tampered with in collision with complainants who have made other complaints. The original tampered document has been placed on the record case No. 459/2003 /DF-VII entitled Mr. Kapil Mitra Vs Priya Village Roadshow. It is apparent that the complaints have been filed in conspiracy and with ulterior motive. By tampering of documents and placing reliance on such tampered document in court records in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant has rendered herself liable for appropriate proceedings under the Indian Penal Code in accordance with the procedure of Criminal Procedure Code. M/s PVR Ltd. Humbly prays that action against the complainant be taken in respect thereof. It is respectfully submitted that photocopies have been annexed in another complaint, which is of identical nature clearly showing the conspiracy being hatched against M/s PVR Ltd.

For elucidation , M/s PVR Ltd is placing a comparison of the photocopy received by it in the present proceedings alongside the photocopy of the tampered document placed on record in the complaint case No. 459/2003/DF-VII. The fraud is glaring on the face of the record. This is enclosed as Annexure IV hereto”.

9. The findings recorded by the Ld. District Forum are solely based on the bald allegation of the Respondent, who even concealed the fact of having filed a complaint earlier on the same cause of action and withdrew it without liberty to file afresh, as deposed by the witness of the Appellant. We find no reason to disbelieve the Law Officer of the Appellant whereas the Respondent did have a reason to do so in order to substantiate her allegations made in her complaint.

10. In the light of the reply of the Appellant duly supported by documents submitted before the Ld. District Forum , we feel constrained to hold that the impugned order is un-sustainable . Scale of justice is required to maintain equilibrium and it should not tilt towards either of the contending parties. Equity demands equity from one and all. The impugned order weighs unequally in favour of the Respondent who did not come before the District Forum with clean hands.

11. Ld. District Forum has not stated in its order as to what offence, the Appellant had committed by refusing to allow eatables, to be carried in the Cinema Hall, where entry is restricted, or not to refund the price of the ticket after the movie is enjoyed by the Respondent till interval, as is her admitted case. To our mind these acts of omission and commission even if assumed to have been established, do not tantamount, by any stretch of reasoning , either to deficiency in ser ice or unfair trade practice, when it is in compliance of requirement of the Statutory Authorities. To take all precautions for the safety and security of the viewers/visitor in a particular public place in the duty of Authorities who manage the premises. A visitor to a movie theatre subjects itself to all the rules and regulations imposed for entry in it, because these are framed taking into consideration all precautions for the safety of one and all.

In our considered view , the impugned order is liable to be set aside to curb the practice of bringing frivolous complaints before the Consumer Fora and to meet the end of justice. Hence the order dated 11.03.2008 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Complaint of the Respondent stands dismissed.

12. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant , be released after completing due formalities.

13. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and , thereafter , the file be consigned to Record Room.


  • edited September 2010
    I purchased two tickets on 19 Sep 2010 of RS 400 ( each Rs 200) at 5:30 from sahara PVR Mall. details are mention below:-

    1. Serial No 03/0008/000174 & Audit no 1019172 and seat no 6,
    2. Serial No 03/0008/000173 & Audit no 1019172 and seat no 7,

    I went at first time in PVR guraon, Who person sold the tickets, he was not said anything about we couldn't took any material in pVR. we were not awaired about carrybag, mobiles and helmets not allowed in the PVR. I was entering in PVR at 5:30.
    they said to helmets are not allowed in PVR, but they were allowed me carrybag and mobiles, but helmets not allowed, there had not any counter to keep those material. I waist my 45 minuts to do that. i wasn't seen movie, I said plz return my money and change my tickets for next show but they said it was not our fault, we can't return money and gave new tickets.
    it's not our fault. becoz they had not any countor part, no body can carry our hemlets. we waist our time and money also. who r the responsible for this. I very disappointed with this. they haven't how deal with customers. I never seen movie in this hall again and and PVR. becoz everyone is thief. I want to proper resolulation of my problems, and I waill esclatled this matter with consumer court.

    I want return my money.

    Mrs Sangeeta Sharma
    H/N No 58
    Sector 12 - A, prem nagar
    behind lotus hospital, Gurgaon,

    Contract No 9015718242, 9015956016

    E - mail _ bhsangi44@yahoo.co.in
  • austinmchambersaustinmchambers Junior Member
    edited March 2012
    Hi All,
    I have booked 4 tickets in PVR Cenimas at PVR Skywalk, Chennai on 27th and did not get any conformation mail for the same however the money was taken out of my bank.
    As of today i did not get a refund. For mobile and other recharges, if the transactions goes thru from the bank and the service is not given our money is refunded within 7 business days .. this is not the case here.
    Today i have sent them a mail to customer care and feedback - after reading other posts about them, im guessing they will not reply.
    Please let me know if there is any other way for me to get my money (Rs. 600)back.

    Austin Chambers (austinmchambers@gmail.com)
  • rishisunddrishisundd Junior Member
    edited April 2012
    Hi Citizens,

    I happen to book tickets for PVR citywalk Saket for sunday 8th April 2012 on 6th of April through online booking of PVR cinemas online site. To my horror i was charged Rs.1400 for 4 tickets and there was no booking ID or email confirmation/SMS about the ticket which reached me. I tried to find a customer support contact number in the official site but surprisingly there is not even a single call in number mentioned in the site. I registered a online complaint thru their site and got a auto generated mail from them that the corporate team of PVR will look into it. But till now there is nothing from them. If the transaction has failed then money transfer is reversed which has alsi not happened. Called the ICICI credit card department and as per them this was a successful transaction. Is this a Nexus of racket for making money where in they money coming into their account and the tickets going out is not even monitored. Not happy at all. I want my money back.

    Thanks and Regards

    Rishi Sundd(rishisundd@gmail.com)
  • edited July 2012
    Ticket booking online on 13 - 7 - 2012 but ticket not booked, money debited from account. Not refunded.

    Boking description : IPAY/ESHP/AVENUES INDIA P/16436433/00000

    booked from IDBI bank a/c :0022104000196734 and a/c holder Baskar V

    Baskar. V baskarv90@gmail.com
  • edited June 2013
    We booked 2 tickets for iddarammayilatho for 7:55 p.m show on 7-06-2013 in PVR .The amount was deducted from my axis bank account but not have received any confirmation mail regarding the tickets.Please Kindly resolve this issue.Transaction details are as follows:

    Cyber Receipt Date:07/06/2013 1:09 PM


    Transaction Details

    Account Number : 912010049970888
    Transaction Date : 07/06/2013
    Transaction Amount : (INR)356.18
    Transaction Type : DR
    Transaction Description : ICONN/75677848/070613/CCAVENUE.COM / CHA

Sign In or Register to comment.