Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
J.K. BABBAR - Appellant
Versus
PICCADILY CINEMA HALL AND ANR. - Respondents
Appeal No. 893 of 2008
Decided on : 27-11-2008
Party in Person, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajinder Singh, District Attorney., for the Respondent
The responsibility of service providers to ensure proper facilities and services to consumers, and the consequences of non-compliance with mandatory conditions for operating a business.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Deficient Services - [Consumer Dispute] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 14(1)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly focusing on the definition of 'consumer', 'deficiency', and 'unfair trade practice'. The court emphasized the responsibility of service providers to ensure proper facilities and services to consumers, and the consequences of non-compliance with mandatory conditions for operating a business.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant and his wife attended a movie at a cinema hall, where they experienced uncomfortable and torn seats. The complainant sought compensation for the negligent and deficient services provided by the cinema hall.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's case was adequately proved, and the District Forum's observation that the complainant had not proved his case was erroneous. The court accepted the complaint and granted compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant due to uncomfortable, unbalanced, and torn seats.
Issues: The issues revolved around the deficient services provided by the cinema hall, the responsibility of the authorities in granting licenses, and the complainant's entitlement to compensation for the substandard facilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the status of the complainant should not be the yardstick for accepting or rejecting the complaint, and emphasized the responsibility of service providers to ensure proper facilities and services to consumers. The court also highlighted the consequences of non-compliance with mandatory conditions for operating a business.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 10,000 along with the grant of litigation costs of Rs. 1,000 in addition to the refund of the price of tickets as allowed by the District Forum. The impugned order of the District Forum was modified accordingly.
ORDER
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member - This appeal has been filed against order dated 5.5.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 675 of 2007. The contextual facts in brief are as under.
2. As per averments, the complainant accompanied by his wife went to Piccadily Cinema Hall on 29.7.2007 for (6.00 to 9.00 p.m. show) of movie titled as Partner . The tickets bearing No. 66832 and 66833 against consideration of Rs. 80 for the upper stall were purchased. It is averred that seat Nos. L-14 and L-15 were mentioned on the tickets in question. The complainant is aggrieved against the bad condition of seats allotted to him and has stated that the cloth/cover/rexine material of the seat No. 14 was entirely torn from the upper side and some nails were protruding out due to which his shirt was torn. It is also alleged that similar was the condition of seat No. L-15 and it was uncomfortable, not properly balanced due to which it was an ordeal for them to sit for three hours. It is also alleged that the seat numbers given were of the lower stall, however he was charged for the upper stall. As per case set up by the complainant he requested the peon/lightman to change their seats but he behaved in a rude manner due to which the complainant went to meet the Manager to lodge his grievance but the Manager was not present in his chamber. It is alleged that even during the interval time he again went but Manager was not available. It is also alleged by the complainant that some other seats were also in a bad condition. The complainant is aggrieved that his holiday was ruined due to uncomfortable and torn seats as they could not enjoy the movie and rather underwent harassment and humiliation due to rude behaviour of staff on duty in the cinema hall. It is alleged that OP No. 1 is deficient in service as it has failed to provide proper facilities in the theatre after charging the full amount. The complainant is also aggrieved against OP No. 2, the Chandigarh Administration as it is failed to exercise due care while granting the licence to OP No. 1. In the prayer clause, a direction has been sought against the OPs for an amount of Rs. 50,000 due to negligent services, Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses and refund of Rs. 80 spent towards the costs of tickets. At the admission hearing stage, prayer was made that the Local Commissioner be appointed to inspect the site and report the condition of facilities specially the seating arrangements and to inspect the seat Nos. L-14 and L-15 specifically, before the issuance of the notice as the seats might be repaired (after notice) by OP No. 1.
3. The OP No. 1 despite notice failed to put in appearance and was proceeded against ex parte.
4. The OP No. 2 filed a reply through Sh.I.S.Sandhu, PCS, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh in which para Nos. 1 and 3 are denied for want of knowledge and para Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have not been answered since pertaining to OP No. 1. In reply to para No. 6 responsibility to pay for any loss due to negligence of OP No. 1 has been denied. It is stated that OP No. 1 is under theOP No. 2 for the purpose of checking the facilities provided to public in such like places and to grant the licence. It is averred that the facilities are being checked regularly in the due course of its duties. It is emphasized that if any deficiency or defect is found, the concerned cinema hall is apprised of the same and directions are given to remove the deficiency or rectify the defect. However this is to be carried out by the cinema hall and not by the answering OP. With regard to case in hand, it is submitted that in the month of April, 2007 the directions were given and on 30.8.2007 the inspection was carried on by the competent officials. The reports of the inspection have been placed on record vide Annexures R-1 and R-2. It is submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant qua the answering OP. It is submitted tha
