District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Bangalore: While considering the instant consumer complaint seeking a direction for PVR Inox Ltd., to cease and desist from playing advertisements beyond the showtime mentioned in the movie tickets, and seeking damages for wasting the complainant’s time; the Bench of M. Shobha (President), K. Anita Shivakumar* and Suma Anil Kumar (Members), found that on the day when the complainant went to theatre to watch movie, PVR Cinema was telecasting commercial advertisements beyond the scheduled movie time which was unfair and unjust. The Commission opined that the opposite parties can telecast only Public Service Announcements (PSAs) 10 minutes prior of the movies as per government guidelines.
The DCRDC thus directed PVR Cinema and PVR Inox Ltd., from stop the afore-said violation of law. It was observed that the Opposite Parties intend to generate money by way of sliding commercial ads, but the same cannot be done at the cost of viewers. The DCDRC also directed the opposite parties to mention actual movie timings on cinema tickets issued to the viewers.
Background:
The complainant booked 3 tickets for the movie ‘Sam Bahadur’ on 26-12-2023 and the show had to commence on 4:05 pm and was to end at 6:30 pm (movie duration: 2 hrs 25 mins). The complainant had intended to go back to work after 6:30 pm; however, upon entering the auditorium at 4:00 pm, the complainant discovered that PVR Cinema started displaying advertisements and movie trailers from 4:05 pm to 4:28 pm. The feature film commenced from 4:30 pm.
The complainant alleged that due to PVR Cinemas playing advertisements for nearly 30 mins, the complainant could not attend other arrangements and appointments he had scheduled for the day and therefore faced losses which could not be calculated in terms of money.
The complainant further alleged that by displaying advertisements for 30 mins, the opposite parties wasted time of the complainant and other movie goers, which is an unfair trade practice as they wrongly communicated the show timings on the tickets and took undue advantage by playing advertisements.
Per contra, the opposite parties contended that it is obligated under law to screen certain PSAs in the form of short films provided by the Central/State Governments and these PSAs are aired on prime time prior to the screening of the movie when the audience members are seated inside the theatre. The opposite parties further contended that videotaping inside the movie theatre is prohibited to protect copyright, therefore, the complainant’s act of video recording on his personal device was illegal.
Commission’s Assessment:
Perusing the instant matter, the Commission pointed out that the complainant’s complaint was only against the commercial advertisements displayed continuously in the 25-minute time with exception being the last 2 adverts, that were PSAs.
The Commission perused the CD provided by the complainant wherein her had recorded the duration of the adverts that were being played. The Commission pointed out that the complainant was able to prove that the opposite parties played majority of commercial advertisements with only 2 ads related to public service. Taking note of the broadcasting guidelines, the DCDRC pointed out that it is mandatory to display PSAs for 10 mins prior to the beginning of the film. Henceforth, the allegation of the complainant is not false, and he rightfully brought the matter before the DCDRC and the opposite parties had violated the same.
Considering the opposite parties’ arguments regarding strict policies in connection to entry and exit in the movie theatres and some audience members may come early or late, the DCDRC said that it is not in the hands of the theatre management, and one has to concentrate on the time of commencement of the movie whose schedule is mentioned on the ticket. The DCDRC opined that the movie should have started at the scheduled time i.e., 4:05 pm following the guidelines for PSAs as well as displaying commercial ads as per discretion; but violation of the guidelines at the cost of the viewers is unfair.
The DCDRC noted that in the new era, time is considered money, and no one has the right gain benefit out of other’s time and money. The DCDRC further pointed out that no illegality was committed by the complainant by video recording the advertisements, as he did not record the movie, Sam Bahadur.
The DCDRC further opined that the complainant raised a bonafide issue as many movie goers might be facing the same problem. The DCDRC thus found PVR liable under Section 39(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and directed them to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental agony, Rs 8000 towards legal costs and Rs 1 Lakh towards punitive damages under Section 39(1)(g).
[A v. PVR Cinemas, CC No. 14/2024, decided on 15-2-2025]
*Order by K. Anita Shivakumar, Member
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate Anudeep L. Jain for complainant
Adv. Anisha Aatresh for OP 1 and OP 3; Adv. Mohumed Sadiq for OP 2
