BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1.  Sudhir Chauhan s/o K.s.Chauhan, R/o # 1018/2,   HIG Flats, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh.

2.  Saroj Malakar s/o Late Sh.M.Malakar, R/o 840, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants

                 V E R S U S

1]  The Manager, PVR Ltd.(PVR Centra), Centra Mall, Plot No.177-D, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh.

2]  General Manager, PVT Ltd. Corporate Office Block A, 4^th Floor, Bldg. No.9, DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurgaon Pin 122 002 Hry.

3]  Mr.Vikra Bhatt, M/s. ASA Production & Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., 502, UIP Plaza, Off Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai 40053

4]  M/s. Shelly’s Media Track, DHL Building – Ambala Highway, Opp. Oasis Banquet, Zirakpur.

                          ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Complainants in person.

          Sh.Kunal Baghi, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.          

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainants visited PVR Centra Mall at Chandigarh on 11.5.2011 for watching “3D Movie Haunted”. The complainants purchased two tickets for watching aforesaid movie, with 3D effects as has been advertised by OPs (Ann.C-2 & C-3). It has been alleged that when movie was started, that has not been shown with 3D effects. The complainants raised strict objection for cheating them by not showing the movie with 3D effects as per advertisement in the pamphlet, but no satisfactory response was received from the Manager/Officers of PVR Cinema. On 20.5.2011, the complainants served a legal notice to OPs (Ann.C-4), but to no effect. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded and clarified that the poster of the said movie that was advertised in its pamphlet, as annexed by the complainants, was not the creation of PVR Cinema. The poster design as well as content is provided by the movie makers/ producers/distributors for other multiplexes also. It is the poster as advertised, in which it has been mentioned that the said movie has been created using 3D technology. This does not automatically lead to the inference that PVR Cinemas were playing the same in 3D Technology. The complainants purchased the tickets for the movie in question as well as watched the movie on 11.5.2011, whereas viewing of the 3D technology was only introduced in PVR Cinemas(Chandigarh) after 24.6.2011.  It was only after the District Magistrate, approved hike in the cost of tickets for 3D movies (Ex.A). The cost of the ticket purchased by the complainants was Rs.90/- each (Ex.B), whereas the cost of the ticket for 3D movie was  Rs.175/-, as approved by DM of Chandigarh. The show timings are reflected on the backside of the pamphlet (Ex.C).  The same does not mention the movie ‘Haunted’ as playing in 3D, whereas all 3D movies are specifically mentioned as such (Ex.D).  It is denied that alleged action of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

        OPs No.3 & 4 did not appear despite service, hence proceeded against exparte.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the complainants in person and learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record.

5]       The grouse of the complainant is that the OPs, by way of misleading/incomplete advertisement, had wasted their precious times as well as money; as they have gone to see the movie “Haunted” with the impression that it would be shown on 3-D Screen in PVR Centra/Cinema, whereas on the pamphlets of PVR Cinemas, it had clearly been shown/reflected that the OPs are showing the said movie “Haunted 3D”. 

6]       While the OPs, in their reply, though have admitted the advertisement/circulation of pamphlet  of the movie Haunted 3D, but denied that it was to be shown on 3D screen.  It was contended that the poster of said movie, which was advertised in its pamphlet, as annexed by the complainant, was not the creation of PVR Cinemas.  The poster design as well as content is provided by the movie makers/producers/ distributors for other multiplexes as well.  It was also contended that the poster, as advertised, mentioned that the said movie had been created using 3D technology and it did give an inference that PVR Cinemas was playing the same in 3D Technology. It is further contended that 3D technology was introduced in PVR Cinema, Chandigarh, after 26.6.2011. 

7]       It is an admitted case of the parties that the movie in question i.e. “Haunted 3D” was not shown in 3D Screen/Technology to the complainants as well as to other customers.

8]       The contention of the OPs is that the 3D technology was only introduced in PVR Cinemas, Chandigarh, after 24.6.2011, when the District Magistrate approved the hike in the cost of ticket for 3D movies. As such the ticket for a 3D movies, is for Rs.175/- as approved, whereas the ticket of the complainants is for Rs.90 only, which was not for a 3D movie. 

9]       The OPs have placed on record an Office Order of District Magistrate, Chandigarh as Ex.A,  which says that ‘on consideration of the request made by the Management of PVR Cinemas, vide letter dated 2.6.2011 for the enhancement of cinema ticket rates as they will start 3-D screen in their Multiplex, the cinema ticket rates is approved/fixed as Rs.175/- per ticket for Gold and silver category of seats’.  The aforesaid contents of the letter specified the rates of the Cinema ticket, which is not the question in dispute.

10]      The question, which arises for consideration & determination is, as to how a reasonable/common man would come to know that the movie created in 3D technology is being shown in 3D Screen/Technology or not? How the visitors/consumers, would come to know as to what is actually being shown and what is actually been advertised by the OPs? Further going by the reply of the OPs, the prompt question, which use to come to the mind of a consumer/customer or a common man is that the things, what had been advertised, that also at the outset of the leading & prime multiplex cinema, did not actually appear in practicability/reality.

11]      In our opinion, it was certainly the lawful duty of the OPs, to clarify this fact in their advertisements/pamphlets as to whether they are showing the movie in question “Haunted 3D” in 3-D Screen/Technology or not.  If the said movie, which admittedly, is created in 3D technology, was not being shown in 3-D technology/screen, then it should have been clearly mentioned by the OPs in their pamphlets/advertisements underneath, in clear terms, that “the movie “Haunted 3D” though created in 3-D technology, is not being shown in 3-D screen/technology”. But it has not been done so, by them, as is clear from the pamphlets at Page No.14 (two pamphlets) placed on the file pertaining to May, 2011 and the complainants had also seen the said movie in the cinema hall of OPs in May, 2011.  We, therefore, opine that the OPs by not doing so, have not only remained grossly deficient in providing proper services to the complainants, but also indulged into adopting unfair trade practice and thereby caused loss, not only to the complainants, but also to the public at large.

12]      The relevant extract of definition of Unfair Trade Practice, as define under Section 2(r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is reproduced as under:-

(r)  "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely;—

(1)  the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,—

(i)     falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;

(ii)    falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;

(iii)…………  ;

(iv) ………..;

(v)  ………..;

(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concern­ing the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services;

(vii) ………..

(viii)……

(ix) materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and, for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made;

(x)  ……..

    (a) …………

 (b) ………

   (c)  contained in or on anything that is sold, sent, delivered, transmit­ted or in any other manner whatsoever made available to a member of the public, shall be deemed to be a statement made to the public by, and only by, the person who had caused the statement to be so expressed, made or contained; 

(2)  permits the publication of any advertisement whether in any news­paper or otherwise, for the sale or supply at a bargain price, of goods or services that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price, or for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable, having regard to the nature of the market in which the business is carried on, the nature and size of business, and the nature of the advertisement……………

13]      Therefore, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act has categorically provided the safeguard, in order to save the consumer from the misleading / incomplete advertisements / pamphlets of big traders / industries / business houses, as has been done by the OPs in the present case. The act & conduct as well as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is writ large on the part of OPs.  The OPs have not only mislead/cheated the complainants, but other consumers as well, who have not opted to enter into litigation or do not have the vision to bring such company/traders into book.  Resultantly, it is a question of numerous/ unlimited consumers / customers, who were / are being mislead/mis-guided in everyday’s life.

14]      The OP-PVR Multiplex, may be showing many movies daily and may be earning lacs of rupees daily/every month.  However, actual loss to the complainants may not be that much, but the actual loss to the society and the consumers at large is considerably much on higher side.  It would not be out of place to state that the Court can take judicial notice with regard to such deficiency/unfair trade practice as many people/consumers use to visit the OPs, to watch movies in their Cinema Halls.

15]      In the present case, considering the facts in detail as well as the proven deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs; we are of the view that the compensation is to be awarded not only on the basis of principle applicable on Tort, but on the basis of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act and interpretation thereof, which confers jurisdiction to award damages for any loss or injury suffered. Injury would include mental agony and torture.

16]      In the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta, III(1993) CPJ 7(SC)=AIR 1994 SC 787, the court observed that the word compensation used in Section 14 is very wide connotation and has not been defined under the Act and held that “in legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss.

17]      While dealing with such contention in charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 668, the Court observed that the Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded in an established case, which not only serve the purpose of recompensing the individual, but also at the same time aims to bring about the qualitative change in the attitude of service providers.

18]      Reliance has also been placed on Ashok Kumar Shivpuri Vs. Akbarally’s & Anr., 2011 (1) CPC 372 of Hon’ble National Commission, dealing with such matter.

19]      Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind as well as the facts & circumstances in entirety, of the present case and the evidence/ documents placed on record by both the parties, the facts speak the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs.  Thus, the complaint, having lot of merit, weight and substances, deserves to be allowed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation, out of which, Rs.10,000/- should be paid to the complainants and Rs.40,000/- should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh, as observed in the foregoing Para No.14 of this order.  The OPs are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainants. 

        This order be complied with by OPs, jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, it would be jointly & severally, liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.06.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainants as well as to the State Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties as well as to Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh, free of charge. The file be consigned.