STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 205 OF 2017
AGAINST
CC NO.399 OF 2016, DISTRICT FORUM I, HYDERABAD
Between :
Vijay Gopal
S/o M. Raghavan,
Age : 28 years,
H.No.12-13-677/44, 2nd floor,
Kimtee Colony,
Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500017
Moble : 9052882988 … Appellant/complainant
And
Inox Multiplex,
Operation Manager,
GVK One Mall, 4th floor,
Road No. 1, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500 034.
Phone : 040-67494949 … Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant/complainant : Party-in-person
Counsel for the Respondent/Opp. party : M/s. K. Vishweshwar Reddy
FA 206 OF 2017
AGAINST
CC NO.399 OF 2016, DISTRICT FORUM I, HYDERABAD
Between :
Inox Multiplex,
Operation Manager,
GVK One Mall, 4th floor,
Road No. 1, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500 034.
Phone : 040-67494949 … Appellant /opposite party
And
Vijay Gopal
S/o M. Raghavan,
Age : 28 years,
H.No.12-13-677/44, 2nd floor,
Kimtee Colony,
Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500017
Moble : 9052882988 … Respondent /complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/opp. party : M/s. K. Vishweshwar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : Party-in-person
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Twenty Third Day of October
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) These are cross appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act ,1986, by the complainant and the opposite party to modify and set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2017 made in CC No. 399 of 2017 on the file of the District Forum I, Hyderabad respectively.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 25.06.2016, he along with his friend went to watch a movie at INOX at GVK situated at Banjara Hills for 7.10 PM show and when he tried for entering movie screen area, the security staff asked him to leave the water bottle which he bought in the same mall premises on the ground of security reasons they do not allow the customers to carry water bottle inside the movie screen zones. They also gave him a token for keeping the water bottle in the clock area and asked him to take the bottle while going back home. Operations Manger, Mr. Srikanth Reddy Mekala, Asst. Manager, Mr. Sai, who were available in the shift told him that they do not allow the water bottle to be carried by the patrons due to security reasons and they informed that they do not have any document to that effect and said that they escalated this matter to the higher ups of INOX movies India and waiting for their response on this issue of allowing/dis-allowing the water bottles inside the screen area. After almost a 30 minute discussion with the manger, he was assured that it would be stopped immediately and customers will not be stopped from carrying water bottles in the screening area. The water bottle inside the INOX cafeteria is Rs.50/- INR which is just Rs.20/- INR in the market. There is no response to his e-mail from the INOX movies management. This restriction has been placed by the management to intelligently coerce the patrons/customers into buying water bottle in their cafeteria to make quick buck and deprive the customers of their basic consumer rights and protection. They did not provide free potable drinking water to the cinema goers and they are made to purchase at a higher price than the MRP which amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to take necessary action against INOX Movies (Hyderabad) at GVK One Mall and directing them to stop such practices of looting and to have visual representation/notification in the theatre premises that the customers can carry only water bottles into the screening area.
4) The opposite Party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the complainant came to watch the Movie at INOX at GVK at Banjara Hills and the security staff did not permit him to carry water bottle inside the Auditorium due to security reasons on the ground that water can be used as ingredient by mixing alkali metals like Sodium and potassium in water which would create fire smoke and explosion. There are chances where water and such metals be carried separately and mixed in the theatre which will burn creating a huge flame and such type of activity can create a stampede and loss of life and property. It is for that reason, the opposite party does not allow outside food. Further, it provides at all its multiplexes, facilities for patrons to consume purified and filtered drinking water in disposable paper cups at free of cost. When a patron purchases a packaged drinking water bottle at an INOX multiplex, the patron is aware of the MRP of such bottle and thereafter voluntarily purchases such bottle at the printed MRP which is also prominently displayed in the food counter. There is no coercion or any unfair trade practice adopted by them. Such sale of packaged drinking water bottle at printed MRP stipulated clearly on the bottle by the manufacturer along with indication “ for sale in selected channels’ is in compliance with the provisions of the LM Act and the LM Rules. The price of the water bottle is fixed at Rs.50/- taking into consideration of the maintenance cost and also the capital investment on it and ambience and amenities provided in the multiplex. The sale of such consumables due to multiple facilities provided to enhance the overall exclusive entertainment experience offered to patrons. There is no unfair trade practice on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-3 and the opposite party also filed evidence affidavit. Heard both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite party to sell the water bottle of the same quantity and quality of the same cost available outside the Cinema Hall, to install/provide free purified water outlets adjacent to entrance or exit of screens or any other places which is convenient to the customer who purchased the Cinema tickets and the said place shall be easily visible, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and trauma and costs of Rs.1,000/- and further directed all the Cinema theatres situated in Hyderabad and Secunderabad though they are not impleaded as a party to the proceedings but they shall follow the directions issued in the case and copies of the Judgment shall be sent to each Cinema theatre and all the Cinema Theatres are directed to follow this judgment and rest of the claim is dismissed. Time for compliance 40 days.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred FA 205 of 2017 and the opposite party preferred A 206 of 2017 against the said impugned order.
8) Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the complainant went to Watch a movie at INOX at GVK situated at Banjara Hills for 7.10 pm show on 25.06.2016 and the security staff did not allow him to carry water bottle into the movie screen zones and he was asked to keep the water bottle in the clock area and a token was given on the ground of security reasons. There is also no dispute that the price of water bottle in the premises of the Cinema Theatre is Rs. 50/- in stead of Rs.20/- outside the theatre.
11). The dispute is with regard to cost of water bottle being higher than the MRP rate fixed outside the theatre and the management of INOX theatre looting the consumers.
12). The complainant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Big Cinemas and another Vs. Manoj Kumar Section, reported in 2016 (IV) CPJ 246, wherein, it was held that there cannot be two MRPs except in accordance with law as per Section 2(1) of Legal Metrology Act and imposed cost of Rs.5,00,000/-. Basing on the said decision, the District Forum directed the opposite party to discontinue the unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice and not to repeat them in future as per Section 14(1)(f) of the C. P. Act and also directed the opposite party not to charge more than the MRP rate which is available outside the Cinema theatre.
13). Counsel for the opposite party argued that the matter is relating to Legal Metrology Act and Legal Metrology Rules framed there-under and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The said argument cannot be accepted since as per Section 3 of the C. P. Act, the Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further , the District Forum already held that as per section 14 (1)(f) of the C.P.Act Consumer Fora have been empowered to order to discontinue the unfair trade practice.
14) Counsel for the apposite party further argued that the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission relied on by the District Forum is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand since in the said case the water bottle was sold at a price higher than the MRP, whereas, in the case on hand, the water bottle is being sold at the MRP price which is printed on the said bottle and further an appeal is preferred against the said decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP ( c ) No. 12773/2016. Further, he argued that currently there is no law which requires that a product must be sold at a uniform price and that there is no law which prohibits dual pricing. The opposite party clearly and prominently displays the MRP of packaged drinking water bottles sold at its Multiplex, in order to enable the patrons/customers to purchase such water bottles after having full information of the MRP.
15) Now, the point to be determined is, whether dual price of the same commodity is admissible in premier locations as per law.
16). The Union Ministry of consumer affairs decided to ban the 'dual' MRP policy, a practice through which sellers charge a higher MRP for their products in certain spaces like malls, airports and hotels etc., It was observed that the quality, quantity and weight of these products were exactly the same as the ones sold by common kirana stores at a lower price. The Big companies claimed the Legal Metrology Act was silent on dual MRP so they could charge a different price. The Act has now been amended to prohibit companies from levying two different MRPs for a single product unless done under legal provisions. Clearly, there is no law that permits them to do so. The issue of ‘Dual MRP’ has been in the limelight for the last one year with more & more people complaining about such practices. All this while, the law was silent on the issue of dual MRP. Recently, on 23rd June 2017, the government has amended the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 effectively banning dual MRP. These rules will become effective from 1st January, 2018. The government has now amended these rules by adding the following in rule 18. This clause says, “Unless otherwise specifically provided under any other law, no manufacturer or packer or importer shall declare different maximum retail prices on an identical pre-packaged commodity by adopting restrictive trade practices or unfair trade practices as defined under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986)”.
As per the order, companies will not be allowed to charge a different price for water, soft drinks or snacks at premium locations. The decision was taken after an appeal made by the Department of Legal Metrology of Maharashtra. The LMO cracked the whip on high profile manufacturers for charging a higher MRP at malls, upmarket restaurants, hotels and airports. . The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had also ruled that there cannot be two MRPs, except in accordance with the law. In view of the above legal and rule position the opposite party can not be said that it is entitled to charge more than the MRP rate fixed outside the premier locations. The MRP rate mentioned on the bottles may be due to an understanding between the INOX and the concerned company and it is not as per law and hence it is not binding over the consumers. The further contention of the opposite party is that the price of the water bottle is fixed at Rs.50/- taking into consideration of the maintenance cost and also the capital investment on it and ambience and amenities provided in the multiplex is not a ground to claim higher charges as per law.
17). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant and the opposite party, this Commission is of the view that the opposite party is resorting to unfair trade practice in charging higher rate in its premises than outside the Cinema hall. . There are no infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by the District Forum. We hereby bring the matter to the notice of the State Government that charging higher rates at premier locations than outside, not permissible as per law and it amounts to unfair trade practice and the State Government has to take necessary steps to curb the same by giving wide circulation through the print and electronic media with regard to this menace of unfair trade practice at premier locations, i.e., Cinema halls, Malls, restaurants etc or any other place, by establishing Consumer Grievance Cell. Now, it is for the State Government to take immediate necessary steps to crack whip on the locations where higher rates are charged than the MRP rates and take appropriate steps by imposing penalty as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. The complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.1,000/- as ordered by the District Forum.
18). Point No. 2 :
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed confirming the impugned order with the above observations. We hereby direct all the premier locations in the State to follow the above guidelines scrupulously. There shall be no order to as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 23.10.2017.
