F.A.No.358/2005 AGAINST C.D.No.101/2003, DISTRICT  FORUM-I,

HYDERABAD

Between-

1. M/s.Satyam 70 MM (Air Cooled)

    Theatre, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

     Rep. by its Manager.

2. M/s. Satyam 70 MM (Air-Cooled)

    Theatre, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,

     By its owners.                                                                   Appellants/opp.parties 1 and 2

And

1. Samudrala Govindra Rajulu, S/o.S.Nagaiah,

    Aged 51 years, Occ-Dist. and Sessions Judge

    On O.D. as Chief Legal Advisor to ADGP, CID,

    Hyderabad, R/o.PJ-21, Officers’ Colony,

    Punjagutta, Hyderabad-500 082.

2. Samudrala Hemalatha, W/o.S.Govinda Rajulu,

    Aged 50 years, Occ-Home Making,

    R/o.PJ-21, Officers’ Colony,

    Punjagutta, Hyderabad-500 082.                                    Respondents/Complainants

Counsel for the Appellants- Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondents-- Respondents served through publication.

QUORUM-THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

                                                            AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

Oral Order-(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

---

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.101/2003 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyerabad,  opposite parties  preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants 1 and 2, husband and wife went to see ‘Khadgam’ telugu movie in opposite party cinema hall first show by purchasing two tickets for Rs.30/- each and while they were entering into the auditorium, they were obstructed by the watchman on the ground that they were carrying potato chips packet and that eatables were not allowed from outside.  The complainant submitted that he expressed his desire to deposit the packet with the theatre  management under proper deposit receipt but no one came forward to receive the packet against receipt and the complainants were not allowed inside the auditorium and therefore the complainant returned to their house without seeing the movie.  It is the case of the complainants that they purchased the potato chips in bulk for their children on their way to cinema hall as the chips shop will be closed by the time the first show of cinema is over. The complainants further submitted that they were not meant for consumption in the hall and that the opposite parties did not deposit the same with them or  even express to refund the amount and that they were hurt by the behavior of the staff of the opposite parties.  The complainants further submitted that the opposite parties in collusion with their canteen management restricted the consumption of outside eatables, which amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the value of the tickets i.e. Rs.60/- together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants and damages of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainant and 12 percent interest and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Opposite parties filed counter and  denied the allegations made in the complaint.  They submitted that the eatables are not allowed in the auditorium as a principle of policy because it encourages rats, cockroaches etc. besides there being huge deposit of waste material causing health hazard and nuisance to the viewers and general public.   They submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Based on the evidence adduced, i.e. Exs.A1 and A2 and the pleadings put forward,  allowed the complaint in part directing opposite parties to refund the value of two tickets i.e. Rs.60/- and also awarded compensation of Rs.6,000/- toe ach of the complainants together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties preferred this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that that there is no evidence placed by the respondents/complainants to show that they came to the Management and requested to take potato chips in deposit and give an acknowledgement to that effect.  He also submitted that P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not give any written complaint to the management and also did not choose to give any notice before filing the complaint.  He further submitted that the appellants have put a notice board at the entry of the theatre  and even on the ticket such a clause is printed that outside food was not admitted as a Rule.  The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondents/complainants left the theatre, when they were objected by the chowkidar without bringing the same to the notice of the appellants and that the District Forum erred in awarding compensation of Rs.6,000/- to each of the complainant together with costs of Rs.1,000/- without any basis and also when there is no negligence or deficiency in service and prayed to allow the appeal.

We have gone through the material on record.  It is not in dispute that the respondents/complainants purchased Exs.A1 and A2 tickets and went to see a movie in the cinema hall of the appellants,  but were objected by the watchman that outside eatables were not allowed inside the auditorium.  According to the respondents/complainants as the management of the appellant failed to accept the chips packet as deposit and give a proper receipt for deposit of the chips packet, they had to return without watching the cinema.  The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondents failed to prove that the respondents/complainants approached the management for deposit of the chips packet and stated that they left after arguing with the watchman and we do not see force in this agreement as the respondents stated that the Manager of the cinema hall also stated that outside food is not allowed into the theatre and has not come forward to deposit the same with them under proper receipt.  The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they had displaced on the notice board at the entrance as well as printed on the cinema tickets that outside food is not allowed as a rule and therefore the compensation awarded is on the high side.  We see force in this contention.  When the respondents/complainants had purchased the potato chips in bulk and were willing to deposit the same with the cinema hall management, they ought to have taken the chips packet in deposit and issued an acknowledgement/receipt for the same and allowed the respondents to watch the film.  It is not the case of the respondents that they wanted to consume the chips in the cinema hall but instead wanted to deposit the same with the management, who refused to accept the same, necessitating the respondents to leave the hall without enjoying the cinema inspite of the fact that they had purchased tickets.  However, the compensation awarded by the District Forum at Rs.6,000/- to each of the respondents/complainants is on the high side and we reduce the same to Rs.2,000/- each         while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified by reducing the compensation awarded from Rs.6,000/- to each of the respondents/complainants to  Rs.2,000/- to each of the respondents/complainants while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum.  Time for compliance six weeks.

                                                                                    PRESIDENT.             LADY MEMBER.

JM                                                                                               Dated 27-2-2008