#gnmaxcinemakollam

[seemabhatnagar]

Alert Consumer succeeds in safeguarding its right as consumer

Vishnu R v. Gopinathan & another

Before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Kollam

Complaint was allowed on 21.08.2023

Background

This is a very interesting case where the complainant Advocate went to watch the English 3D movie on 06.01.2023 Avatar: The way of water. He booked two tickets through Book My Show app & paid Rs. 367.20/- including price of the ticket & convenience fee. But when he reached G-max Cinema at Bishop Jerome Nagar, Chinnakada Kollam he was charged Rs. 60 in the name of rental cost for the two 3D Glasses for viewing the movie & this rent was charged from each and every person who so ever comes to watch any 3D Movie @G-max Cinema & viewers were unaware of the unapproved nature of charging extra for 3D glasses.

Notice was served to the proprietor of G-max cinema. It was received but opposite party neither appeared nor submitted his justification through written statement to substantiate his justification.  As such the case was proceeded ex-parte. Complainant submitted an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. No cross examination took place and complainant’s affidavit went uncontested.

Submission of the consumer/complainant

This act amounts to unfair trade practice, gross deficiency in service and fleecing, and complaint was filed before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

In the process, the Proprietor accrued money from customers without offering any meaningful advantage in return.

The glasses were stored in plastic covers post-use and then passed on to the audience of the subsequent screening without proper sterilization, raising hygiene worries as well.

Such practices by individual theater owners amounts to exploiting consumers on top of ticket expenses, from unsuspecting customers & is unethical profiteering.

Issues before the court

Whether the opposite party was engaged in unfair trade practice

Whether there is deficiency is service provided by the Opposite party

Relief associated & costs

Observation of the Court

Not providing the necessary equipment is similar to offering an incomplete tool for a specific purpose. This underscores the consumer's rightful expectation that all essential elements should be provided to fully enjoy the product they have paid for.

This case emphasizes the need for suppliers to fulfill their commitments comprehensively, ensuring that consumers receive the complete and satisfactory product or service they have paid for.

The absence of the opposite party to rebut the allegation of the Complainant raises significant concern.

The absence of a counterargument can be perceived as indicative of an inability to provide a credible explanation that would stand up to scrutiny. Consequently, the assumption that the opposite parties engaged in unfair and restrictive* trade practices gains merit.

Restrictive trade practice* - Any trade practice that obligates a consumer to purchase, rent, or use certain goods or services as a prerequisite for 6 obtaining other goods or services.

Here the opposite parties mandated the complainant to pay Rs. 30 each for the 3D glasses towards rent, which unambiguously constitute unfair trade practice.

Charging rental fees for 3D glasses, which is an essential component for 3D Movie had endured mental agony and emotional distress to the complainant for which the complainant has to be compensated.

The complainant succeeded in proving his case.

Order

The opposite parties were directed to refund Rs.60/-to the complainant along with an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amounts aforementioned shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till realization.

Seema Bhatnagar