THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 261 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 04.09.2014.
Date of Decision: -30.09.2015.
Ravinder Singh son of Sh. Balwan Singh, resident of Ward No. 3, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Sun City Cinemas Pvt. Ltd., through Manager, C/o Bhiwani City Mall, Near Huda Park, Bhiwani, Haryana.
- Sun City Cinemas Pvt. Ltd., through Managing Director, 48, First Floor, Janpath, New Delhi.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Ashok Nehra, Advocate for complainant
Shri K.C. Bansal, Advocate for OP no. 1.
OP no. 2 given up.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that on 16.01.2014, he had purchased two tickets through Internet for him and his friend Parveen, for movie “DEDH ISHKIYAA” for the show to be held on 17.01.2014 at 10.30 AM from the Ops. It is alleged that on 17.01.2014, they reached at cinema and surprised to know that there is no parking place to park the vehicles by OP no. 1. It is further alleged that at about 10.00 AM to 12.30 PM they were waiting for seen the show but at last about 12.45, one person came from the internal staff and told them that they should leave the building as there will be no show of movie. It is further alleged that Ops were threatened complainant and his friend. It is further alleged that no satisfactory reasons were given for cancellation of the show and staff of OP no. 1 also refused to give in writing about the fact. After repeated requests of complainant, OP no. 1 made a remark on the back side of the tickets that the show was cancelled. After that a legal notice dated 13.06.2014 was also sent by the complainant but Ops did not respond. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement and took preliminary objections and denied the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant is to blackmail the answering respondent just to enrich himself unjustly by claiming compensation a sum of Rs. 5 lacs against the actual loss of travelling expenses by car from Dadri which comes about Rs. 250/- It is submitted that the license for showing the new film on 17.01.2014 was received at about 11.30 AM from the distributor of the film and in the absence of the same, the first show of the movie could not be shown at 10.30 AM & had to cancel the same. It is submitted that the opposite party announced for the cancellation of the first show and informed that the said movie will be shown in the 2nd show starting from 1.30 PM. It is submitted that the staff of the opposite party expressed their sorry feelings to all ticket holders for the inconvenience caused to them and further announced that the ticket holders of first show can opt to see the 2nd show with the same ticket, if they are interested. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant given up OP no. 2 vide order dated 25.06.2015.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C4 and closed the evidence.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite party have placed on record supporting affidavit.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant purchased the ticket to see the movie at Rs. 137/-. But the Ops did not shown the movie on the time fixed on 17.01.2014. The Ops intentionally and illegally harassed the complainant, while the movie was released on 10.10.2014. He further submitted that the Ops are liable to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant on account of damages etc. because the precious time of complainant was wasted.
8. Learned counsel for Opposite Parties reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the permission/licence is granted by the distributor for showing the movie online in the movie server, but due to some technical problem permission/licence was not received by the Ops in time and thus the show fixed for 10.30 AM on 17.01.2014 could not be shown. The delay in receipt of permission/licence from the distributor is beyond the control of the Ops. He further submitted that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged loss and damages etc. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-
I M/s Usha (India) Ltd. Vs. State Estate Management Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (2) CLT 76.
II Yashpal Vs. SSG PHARMA (P) Ltd. IV (2006) CPJ 377
III Union of India Vs. P.K. Ray 2004 (1) CLT 433
9. We have examined the entire material on record and given the thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties. Admittedly, the show of the movie was not shown at the time fixed at 10.30 AM on17.01.2014. The complainant in his evidence has produced the photo copy of ticket and copy of confirmation of booking ticket. No other cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his contention that the complainant has suffered loss and damages etc. and the complainant is entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 5 lacs from the Ops.
The Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Usha’s case (supra) held as under:-
“It is well settled law that compensation can be quantified only on rationale basis and on consideration of documentary and/or oral evidence produced showing the extent of loss suffered. Compensation can be awarded to a consumer only in respect of the loss or injury found to have been suffered by him due the negligence of the opposite party. Assuming the allegations made in the complaint to be true, even then, we do not find any material on the record to prove that the complainant had suffered any loss for which he deserves to be compensated. In view of this, we find no merit in this complaint filed by the complainant and it is dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs”.
The Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi in Yashpal’s case (supra) held as under:-
“Tendency of the consumers to blackmail the traders or the manufacturers just to enrich themselves unjustly by claiming compensation in thousands and lacs of rupees against the actual loss of Rs. 100 or Rs. 1,000 has to be curbed with heavy hands and that can be done only by imposing a penalty upon such consumers. In terms of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is entitled to the amount of compensation as to the actual loss or injury suffered by him or the mental injury due to the negligence of the opposite parties.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case for the loss of Rs. 3 suffered by the appellant, the appellant has claimed compensation of Rs. 3 lacs whereas the District Forum without applying its mind as to the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had awarded compensation of Rs. 4,000 including the cost of litigation and that too by observing that this compensation is a ‘symbolic’ compensation. Obviously the District Forum has proceeded on the entire wrong presumption as to the concept of compensation being awarded under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has not even cared to look into the relevant provisions that empowers the District Forum to award compensation. The appeal is highly misconceived and misdirection and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be deposited in the “Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid)” out of the compensation awarded to the appellant”.
10. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the judgments mentioned above, we are of the view that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,000/- would be adequate and proper to meet the end of justice. Accordingly, we partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and award Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant against the Ops. This order will be complied with by OPs within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-30.09.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member
