Haryana

Sonipat

414/2013

AMIT KUMAR S/O VIKRAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER Q CINEMA & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

                             Complaint No.414 of 2013

                             Instituted on:04.10.2013

                             Date of order:21.01.2015

 

Amit Kumar son of Shri Vikram Singh, resident of House no.675/29, Gali no.2, Mehlana road, Vikas Nagar, Sonepat.

                                                                                                               ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

Manager/Incharge Q Cinema & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., TDI Mall, Main GT Karnal road, near Delhi Border, Kundli, Sonepat.

                                                 ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh. Amit Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

         Sh. Amit Batra, Adv. For respondent.               

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that on 12.09.2013 the complainant went to the Cinema Hall of the respondent to see movie Shudh Deshi Romance at about 10.14 am alongwith his friend Sandeep Dalal and they purchased the tickets for an amount of Rs.120/- each. They were sitting in the left side of cinema in the middle vide ticket no.070473 and 070464. On the backside of the said tickets, special instructions were mentioned that Smoking is not allowed. But despite this, some of the people sitting in the cinema hall were smoking and due to this, the complainant and his friend felt disturbance.  They made a complaint in this regard to the respondent and his officials but of no use.  The Air Conditioner of the cinema hall were not working properly. When the complainant and his friend went to their respective seats, some other persons were sitting on their seats and when they asked the officials of the respondent for providing them the respective seats, the officials of the respondent showed their inability in this regard.  Due to this, the complainant and his friend has to leave their respective seats and they sit on the backside seats of the cinema hall, where some bad elements were sitting who were making noise loudly  and due to their disturbance, the complainant and his friend  could not enjoy the film. The complainant and his friend again made a complain in this regard to the officials of the respondent, but they showed their inability.  Due to this act and conduct of the respondent, the complainant and his friend suffered unnecessary mental agony, harassment and wastage of time. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has denied the fact that most of the people were smoking inside the theatre or the Air Condition of the Cinema Hall were not working properly or the complainant & his friend were not provided their respective seats or some body else were creating any nuisance.  The real facts of the case are that the complainant and his friend themselves were causing indiscipline during the show.  They put their feet on the front seat and were speaking loudly with each other and when the officials of the respondent objected to the same, the complainant and his friend started misbehaving.  So, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the respondent failed to provide the complainant and his friend Sandeep Dalal, their respective seats. They sit on the backside of the cinema hall, there some bad elements were seating and they were making noise loudly and due to their disturbance, they could not enjoy the film.  Further it is submitted that the Air conditioner of the cinema hall were not working properly. The respondent further failed to maintain the discipline because some of the people were smoking in the cinema hall premises.  As and when the complainant and his friend made complaint in this regard to the officials of the respondent, they showed their inability.

          Sandeep Dalal son of Sahab Singh has tendered his affidavit in support of the pleadings of the complainant and he has also deposed about the deficient services rendered by the respondent.

 

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent because the complainant and his friend themselves were causing indiscipline during the show.  The air conditioner of the cinema was working properly. But the complainant and his friend put their feet on the front seat and were speaking loudly with each other and when the officials of the respondent objected to the same, the complainant and his friend started misbehaving.  The respondent has also denied the other allegations as leveled by the complainant and his friend Sandeep Dalal.

          The respondent in support of their case has placed on record the report of one Anil Verma regarding properly functioning of the air conditioner of the cinema. Except this document, there is no other evidence from the side of the respondent.

 

          In the present case, after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file, we are of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant and his friend Sandeep Dalal went to the cinema hall of the respondent to see the movie. 

 

          The respondent has submitted that the complainant and his friend themselves were causing indiscipline during the show.  They put their feet on the front seat and were speaking loudly with each other and when the officials of the respondent objected to the same, the complainant and his friend started misbehaving.  But to prove this allegation, there is nothing on the file from the side of the respondent.  No affidavit of any Supervisor, Gate Keeper or Attendant has been filed by the respondent to rebut the contentions of the complainant.  In our view, the respondent only to escape their skin, has leveled false and baseless allegations against the complainant and his friend.  On the other hand, Sandeep Dalal who accompanied the complainant to see the movie on the respective date and date in the cinema hall of the respondent, has tendered his affidavit in support of the pleadings of the complainant and he has also deposed in the manner which they suffered during the time which they spent in the cinema hall of the respondent.  In our view, the pleadings of the complainant and the evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no rebuttal to the same from the side of the respondent.  Accordingly, it is held that the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the respondent has failed to prove their allegations against the complainant and his friend.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Rs. Ten Thousands)  for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:21.01.2015