KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL Nos. 431/2016 & 553/2016

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 09.04.2021

(Against the Order in C.C. 469/2013 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

APPEAL No. 431/2016

APPELLANT:

The Proprietor, Remya Theatre, Dhanya Remya Theatre Complex, Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram.

                    (By Adv. C.S. Rajmohan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Adv. Ravi Krishnan, MR-101, N.S.P. Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

(Party in person)

APPEAL No. 553/2016

APPELLANT:

Ravi Krishnan N.R., Advocate, 101# N.S.P. Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

(Party in person)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

The Proprietor, Remya Theatre, Dhanya Remya Theatre Complex, Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram.

                      (By Adv. C.S. Rajmohan)

COMMON JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

Both these appeals challenge the final order dated 20.04.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) in C.C. No. 469/2013.  Appeal No. 431/2016 is filed by the opposite party aggrieved by the compensation granted to the complainant.  Appeal No. 553/2016 is filed by the complainant who is not satisfied with the reliefs granted.  The facts in these appeals fall within a narrow compass.   For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as the complainant and opposite party in this judgment also. 

2.  On 28.10.2013 the complainant had gone to the cinema theatre of the opposite party for viewing an English 3 D movie, ‘Gravity’.  He had carried with him the 3D spectacles that he had purchased for Rs. 30/- on an earlier occasion, for the purpose of viewing another movie, ‘Avatar’.  At the theatre, he saw a board near the reserved class showing the ticket charge as Rs. 30 + 50.  On enquiry, he came to know that the ticket charge was Rs. 50/- and Rs. 30/- was being charged as rent for the 3D spectacles supplied by the opposite party.  There were notice boards intimating the viewers that the spectacles should be returned after the movie.  Since he already had his own spectacles with him, the complainant requested for the issue of a ticket to him.  However, the person who was issuing the tickets refused to give a ticket for Rs. 50/-.  Therefore, as insisted by him the complainant was forced to pay an additional amount of Rs. 30/- towards rent of the spectacles.  According to the complainant, the spectacles were found to be kept in a plastic cover after use and were being issued to the viewers of the next show, without any cleaning or sterilisation.  He also complained that no bill was given to him for payment of the amount of Rs. 30/- collected as rent for the spectacles.  He further contended that, the spectacles necessary for viewing 3D movies were given free of cos