Theatre ordered to pay Rs 5,000 after lawyer watches ‘Pushpa 2’ with no AC

Allegations of non-functional ACs

• The complainant, who is an advocate, told the commission that he and his family purchased three Gold Class tickets worth Rs 525 to watch Pushpa 2 at the theatre on December 31, 2024.
• During the screening, they allegedly found that the air-cooling system was not working and that there were no operational fans in the auditorium.
• He claimed that he raised the issue with the theatre manager during the interval and that several other viewers also complained about the lack of cooling, but no corrective action was taken.
• Feeling aggrieved, the complainant moved the consumer commission.
• The theatre denied the allegations, contending that it was an air-cooled theatre where the cooling plant operated throughout the day.
• It argued that audiences often requested reduced cooling during December and maintained that the cooling system was functioning on the day in question.
• It also denied the allegations that the fans were not working.
• The theatre further submitted that only 57 people were present for the show and sought dismissal of the complaint, denying any deficiency in service.

Relief granted

After examining the evidence, the commission observed that the theatre had taken inconsistent stands by simultaneously claiming that the cooling plant was always operational and that audiences usually asked for reduced cooling during winter.

It noted that the theatre wanted to take shelter on the guise of non-occupancy and poor attendance.

It held that the contradictory defence taken by the theatre was sufficient to establish that the complainant and his family had suffered while watching the movie.

Allowing the complaint in part, the commission directed the theatre to refund the amount of Rs 525 to the complainant, together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation.

It further directed to pay an amount of Rs 3,000 towards compensation to the complainant for causing inconvenience and mental agony.

The commission directed the theatre to also pay Rs 2,000 towards the costs of the litigation to the complainant.

The commission ordered compliance within 45 days, failing which the complainant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs 2,000 over and above the amount already awarded.

Car damaged, Restobar asked to pay Rs 3 lakh

In another case, the district consumer commission in Hyderabad has directed a Secunderabad-based restobar to pay Rs 3 lakh compensation and Rs 15,000 costs to a customer whose car was badly damaged while in the custody of its valet parking service, holding the establishment responsible for failing to safeguard the vehicle entrusted in its care.

A bench comprising B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (president) and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and V Janardhan Reddy of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, noted that the restobar and its staff had acted negligently in safeguarding the complainant’s vehicle, which was sent for valet parking.

“We are of the considered view that the liability of the opposite party No. 1 (restobar) is that of the bailee for the complainant’s vehicle that is handed over to them for valet parking. Hence, the complainant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1,” the bench held in its order dated May 19.