Back
PVR Inox Directed To Pay ₹75,000 For 22-Minute Ad Delay: Hyderabad Consumer Commission
In a significant consumer protection ruling, the has held and its parent company liable for after a film screening was delayed by 22 minutes due to excessive commercial advertisements. The Commission ordered the theatre chain to pay a total of ₹75,000, including and .
The Case of a Delayed Show
purchased two tickets for the 10:35 PM screening of the Telugu film Kubera on . He and a friend arrived at the theatre by 10:30 PM and took their seats, expecting the film to begin shortly. Instead, commercial advertisements and promotional trailers played continuously. The movie finally started at 10:52 PM — a delay of nearly 22 minutes.
Kumar argued that this deviation from the scheduled start time caused him significant inconvenience. He had planned to return home by 2:00 AM but reached only at 3:00 AM, disrupting his rest and exposing him to late-night travel risks. He approached the consumer commission on , seeking for mental agony and alleging and .
PVR’s Defence and the Commission’s Rejection
PVR Inox defended the practice, asserting that screening advertisements, trailers, and public service announcements (PSAs) was part of its to carry on business under . The company relied on the ’s decision in K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2023) 5 SCC 786, which recognised a cinema hall as private property entitled to stipulate terms not contrary to . It also claimed that the PSAs promoted social causes like education and health.
The Commission rejected this defence, noting that the ’s Office Memorandum dated (Ex. A-2) explicitly limits mandatory PSA screening to only 2 minutes , to be shown within 10 minutes before the feature film. The memorandum does not permit commercial advertisements beyond the scheduled showtime. The Commission observed that the theatre had screened commercial advertisements well past the scheduled start, which was not covered by any legal mandate.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Commission highlighted the intentional nature of the delay:
“The deliberate act of telecasting advertisements during the show time clearly constitutes an under the .”
It further noted that the Opposite Parties failed to rebut the complainant’s evidence (a compact disk recording of the event), which proved that advertisements continued until 10:52 PM. The Commission held:
“The Opposite Parties have been committing unfair and restrictive trade practices for which they gained undue and huge monetary benefits that will not be permissible under Ex. A-2.”
The Final Order
The Commission partly allowed the complaint with the following directions:
- of ₹20,000 for inconvenience caused due to unfair trade practices.
- of ₹5,000.
- of ₹50,000 to be deposited in the District Consumer Welfare Fund.
- A direction to discontinue the and not repeat it in future, as per .
- Compliance within 45 days , failing which the amount will carry interest at 9% per annum .
The Commission dismissed the remaining claims. This ruling underscores that screening schedules are a consumer entitlement, and theatres cannot monetise audience time by delaying the feature film for commercial gain. It sets a clear precedent that adherence to scheduled showtimes is integral to service quality in the entertainment industry.
