Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/581

Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PVR Silver Arc - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                         Complaint No: 581 dated 18.09.2018.                                                                          Date of decision: 20.11.2018           

Sh.Ajit Singh Walia aged 55 years s/o Late Manohar Singh Walia r/o 306-B, Model Town Extension, Part-1, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant                                                            VersusPVR-Silver Arc, Gurdev Nagar, Silver Arc Mall, near Aarti Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 through authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                                                                   …..Opposite party

            Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT                                                                        SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:-

For complainant            :         In person                           

ORDER

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                                                         1.                 Complainant along with his family members visited OP for watching movie ‘Mar Gaye Oye Loko’ on 9.9.2018 after purchase of four tickets. During interval, complainant for eating something, preferred to purchase popcorn and for that purpose, he visited the counter/stall inside in the PVR. Complainant handed over currency note of Rs.500/- and was returned back an amount of Rs.250/- for the medium popcorn in loose box. It is claimed that high rate charged for the popcorn of quantity of 150 gm approximately. Complainant sought for refund, out of retained amount of Rs.250/-, but that was not done and as such, this complaint for directing OP not to adopt unfair trade practice. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.85,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.7500/- more claimed. Refund of excess charged amount of Rs.40/- even sought. Payment of receipt of Rs.250/- even was not issued to complainant and that also alleged to be an unfair trade practice. Ticket rate of Rs.210/- charged per person is also alleged to be excessive.

2.                 Arguments at admission stage heard.

3.                Grievance of complainant is regarding charging of excessive price of Rs.250/- for the popcorn purchased by him in the PVR complex, where he went for seeing movie. Consumer complaint in such like cases is not maintainable in view of law laid down in case titled as Pvr Limited vs. Ekta Jindal- bearing appeal No.08 of 460 decided on 1.9.2009-(1)2010-CPJ-98(Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) and of decision dated 21.07.2017 given in First Appeal No.299 of 2014 titled as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. Sh.Siddharth Manchanda, Advocate and others given by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Ratio of both these cases lays that if on grant of eating house licence to run a counter in the Cinema, sale of things from that counter takes place, then that sale is not from a shop. Rather, sale of article made in the precincts in the cinema hall falls in the category of a sale in a restaurant and as such, the price of sold article in excess of the price charged in a shop on road, cannot be subject matter of the consumer dispute. It is also held by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand in above said case that for sale from outlet of a cinema hall, the retailer has to incur much higher costs for maintaining the outlet by way of higher lease rentals, air-conditioning costs and other operating and fixed overheads. So, if the customer pays more than the price of goods including service provided in the cinema hall, then he enjoys the ambience of the hotel or a restaurant, due to    which, bar of charging excess in MRP envisaged by the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measurement Act, 1976 is not applicable. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in one of the latest case decided on 12.12.2017 bearing Civil Appeal No.21790 of 2017 titled as Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India vs. Union of India and others has held that neither provisions of the Standards Weights and Measurement Act, 1976 and nor provisions of     Legal Metrology Act, 2009 applies to sale of mineral water and hotels and restaurants regarding non-charging of price above MRP. So, if OP has charged Rs.250/- for popcorn, then the complainant cannot project the grievance of higher rate, because of enjoyment of ambience by the complainant in PVR precincts. So, in view of ratio of above cited cases, this consumer complaint for complaining of charging of extra rate is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself.

4.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself. Copy of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules.

5.                File be indexed and consigned to record room. 

                             (Vinod Gulati)                                    (G.K. Dhir)

                              Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 20.11.2018.

Gurpreet Sharma