Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/9/2014

S. SATHIA CHANDRAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PVR CINEMAS, THE MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

P.T. GEOTOM AND V. SATISH

01 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                  Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                         :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 9 of 2014

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.19/2011 dated 26.06.2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F, Chennai (North)

 

Tuesday, the 1^st day of March 2022

 

S. Sathia Chandran

Advocate

S/o. R.M. Swaminathan

300/183, II Floor

Thambu Chetty Street

Chennai – 600 001.                                              .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs –

 

The Manager

PVR Cinemas

Ampa Skywalk Mall

4^th Floor, No.1

Nelson Manickam Road

Aminjikarai

Chennai – 600 025.                                        .. Respondent / Opposite Party

 

 

    Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                : M/s. P.T. Geotom

    Counsel for the Respondent / Opposite party   : No representation

   

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 11.02.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the Appellant/ Complainant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J.,  PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, as against the order dated 26.06.2013 passed in C.C. No.19 of 2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

 

2. The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The appellant/ complainant is an Advocate.  On 07.01.2011, at about 09.00 p.m., he booked 3 tickets at the rate of Rs.120/-each, one for himself, one for his wife and one for his daughter, in order to watch the 3D film “Gulliver’s Travels” in English, on 08.01.2011.  The opposite party theatre allotted them seat Nos. 13, 14, and 15 in Row ‘L’, for the show at 05.00 p.m, on 08.01.2011.  On the said date, when the complainant entered the theatre hall, he was instructed to get 3D glasses for each one of them, at the canteen.  The complainant went to the canteen and asked for glasses.  But to his shock and surprise, he was asked to pay  Rs.25/- for each 3D glasses.   In fact, the cost of the ticket is             always inclusive of the cost of 3D glasses.  Therefore, there cannot be a separate charge for the 3D glasses.  Hence, he questioned the staff in the theatre, but his contention was not taken into consideration.  He was compelled to pay the amount for 3D glasses separately. Though a sum of Rs.25/- was collected for each of the glasses, no receipt was issued.   The 3D glasses were made up of cardboard paper with thin glass sheet, which would not be more than Rs.3/- each.  When the film was screened, the complainant and others viewed the film with 3D glasses but to the shock and dismay the complainant’s family could not view the film with 3D glasses, as the shade of the 3D glasses obstructed the view.  Therefore, they were totally disappointed, as not even a single 3D effect was exhibited through the 3D glasses.  Only at the fag end of the movie, the complainant realised that the cinema was not in 3D format, as advertised.  This has caused total disappointment and also untold mental agony for the family especially for the 5 years old child, who longed to watch the movie in 3D format.  Next day morning, when the complainant checked the 3D glasses given by the opposite party theatre, he found that the glasses were not at all 3D glasses and realised that the opposite party had fraudulently cheated him as well as other viewers.   Hence, alleging deficiency of service, he has come forward with the present complaint seeking for the following reliefs:-

1. to refund the complainant Rs.360/- for the tickets and Rs.75/- for the 3D glasses ;
2. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family on account of the deficiency of service;  and
3. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards the cost of this proceedings.

 

3.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party filing a written version stating that over the past 13 years PVR Cinemas has been a leading and premium Multiplex Cinema Exhibition Company in the country.  They had pioneered the multiplex revolution in India by establishing the first multiplex cinema in 1997.  The 3D glasses are made only to watch the 3D movie, which was projected in the auditorium.  The Central Board of Film Certification, Government of India vide Certificate No.VFL/A/383/2010-Mum dated 30.12.2010 had certified that the film namely, “Gulliver’s Travels” is 3D.  The allegation of the complainant that the film “Gulliver’s Travels” is only a 2D film and it is not required to watch through 3D glasses, is denied.  The opposite party has never followed any unfair restrictive trade practices or deficiency in services.  The present complaint has been filed with false averments.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the appellant/ complainant proof affidavit was filed and 5 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.  On the side of the respondent/ opposite party 6 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.B1 to Ex.B6, along with proof affidavit. 

 

5. After analyzing the entire evidence and pleadings, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint.  Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has come forward with this appeal.

 

6.   The submissions of the counsel for the appellant are on the following lines.  When the complainant and his family were hoping to enjoy a 3D film “Gulliver’s Travels” in the opposite party theatre, they were totally upset since no single scene was exhibited in the 3D format.  Only at the fag end of the movie, the complainant realised that he was watching the film in 2D format and not in the 3D format.  This has caused mental agony and disappointment to him, his wife and especially his 5 years old child, who longed to see a 3D film.  After viewing the movie, on the next day when he checked the 3D glasses, which he was forced to buy, he found that it is not a 3D glass and the opposite party had fraudulently cheated them as well as other viewers.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 

 

7.  Heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on records. 

 

8.  On perusal of the material records, we find that the opposite party has marked copy of the certificate dated 30.12.2010  issued by the Central Board of Film Certification, Government of India, which would reveal that the film is a 3D film.  Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the opposite party has cheated them by compelling them to buy 3D glasses to watch 2D film, cannot be accepted.  Further, we are of the opinion that whether the movie is 2D or 3D, could be easily found by even an ordinary prudent layman through his naked eyes.  Therefore, this submission made by the appellant cannot be accepted.  Yet another submission of the counsel for the appellant is that on the next day when he checked the 3D glasses, he came to know that the 3D glasses forcibly sold by the opposite party is not 3D glasses and thus the opposite party has cheated them by receiving Rs.25/-  for each glass.  But, in order to prove this contention, the complainant ought to have adduced some expert evidence.  But no evidence was produced before the District Forum.  Merely marking the 3D glass as an Exhibit before the District Forum, will not be helpful in any way to the complainant.  When no tangible evidence was produced by the complainant to prove his case, he has no other go except to fail in his case.

 

9.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 26.06.2013 passed in C.C. No.19 of 2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) and hence the same is confirmed.  Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed. 

 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT