A movie night plan turns into a legal battle for a Hyderabad lawyer. Significantly, in this legal battle, he was awarded a compensation of Rs 75,000 against PVR Cinemas. The lawyer had booked two tickets for the show starting at 10:35 pm. They had already taken their seats hoping that the movie would start on time. But, advertisements and trailers continued to play on the screen, and the film started 17 minutes later than scheduled. Due to this delay, he lost almost an hour more at the end of the night, as he reached home at 3 am instead of 2 am.

Why did the customer file a case against PVR?

He said the delay was no small inconvenience. Arriving home an hour later than expected, his plans for the rest of the night were ruined and he had to travel late at night. He argued that the PVR was using the extra minutes to show commercial advertisements instead of actual public service content, and that this was in violation of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rule that limits such telecasts to a few minutes before the start of a film. He took up the matter before the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and sought compensation for trouble and inconvenience as well as legal expenses.

What arguments did PVR give in its defence?

PVR did not deny that the film started late. His defense was based on his right to run his business. Cinema chains told the commission that showing advertisements, trailers and public service films is part of their right to conduct business, which is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He also cited an old decision of the Supreme Court, which said that a cinema hall is a private property, and its owner can set rules for its operation, provided those rules are not against public interest, safety or welfare.

PVR said the content shown before the film was related to public interest, as it included topics like literacy, agriculture, women’s welfare and cleanliness drive. He argued that none of these could be considered as deficiency in service and urged the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

Decision of the Commission

The Commission did not accept this contention. The Commission cited a memorandum of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which clearly states the extent to which such public service material can be shown. According to that memorandum, the duration of approved public service films is fixed at a maximum of two minutes and should be shown ten minutes before the start of the film or during the interval, and not extend beyond that.

The Commission also noted that PVR has not seriously challenged the facts of the delay in its written reply and has not adduced any concrete evidence to rebut the counsel’s contention. The commission said that running ads longer than this limit was not a petty business decision, but an unfair business practice aimed at extracting additional commercial benefits from viewers.

Based on this, the Commission awarded PVR Rs. 20,000, towards litigation expenses Rs. 5,000 and as punitive damages Rs. 50,000 was ordered to be paid. Instead of giving this amount directly to the complainant, this amount was to be deposited in the District Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commission has also directed PVR to stop such activity in future.