A Hyderabad consumer commission found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice over commercial advertisements running before a scheduled film screening.
What Happened
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad, has ordered PVR Cinemas and PVR INOX Ltd. to pay a total of ₹75,000 in a consumer complaint concerning the delayed start of a film after pre-show advertisements.
The amount comprises ₹20,000 as compensation to the complainant, ₹5,000 towards litigation costs and ₹50,000 as punitive damages payable to the District Consumer Welfare Fund.
The complaint was filed by Chanda Athish Kumar after he purchased two tickets for the 10:35 PM screening of the Telugu film Kubera at PVR Cinemas, Next Galleria Mall, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad, on 20 June 2025.
According to his account recorded in the order, he and a friend were seated by about 10:30 PM. Advertisements and trailers began around that time and continued until 10:52 PM. Public service awareness films were then screened before the feature film began.
The complainant therefore described the delay as about 22 minutes. He also submitted that the delay affected his planned return home and caused inconvenience and late-night travel concerns.
The commission found that the conduct amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. It also directed PVR to discontinue the unfair or restrictive trade practice and not repeat it.
Background & Context
The complaint was filed on 4 July 2025 under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant sought ₹1 lakh for mental agony and harassment, punitive damages and costs, along with ₹15,000 towards litigation costs. The commission allowed the complaint only in part.
A central part of the complainant’s case was the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s Office Memorandum dated 30 November 2023, marked as Exhibit A-2.
According to the memorandum relied upon in the complaint, screening of approved films and public service awareness films is mandatory for exhibitors under Section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The memorandum states that such PSA films had been reduced to a duration of up to two minutes and were to be screened within 10 minutes before the start of the film and during the interval.
The complainant’s contention was that commercial advertisements occupied this period instead and generated commercial revenue.
PVR defended the practice on several grounds. As recorded in the order, it relied on its right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
PVR also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, arguing that a cinema hall is private property and its owner may stipulate terms so long as they are not contrary to public interest, safety and welfare.
The company further contended that pre-film advertisements, public service announcements and trailers could serve public-interest purposes, including awareness relating to education, agriculture, welfare and sanitation. It argued that there was no law prohibiting such content and that the screening time should not be treated as a delay or deficiency in service.
Key Details
Forum: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad
Bench: President Vakkanti Narasimha Rao and Member Suma Vala
Case: Chanda Athish Kumar v. PVR Cinemas & Anr., Consumer Case No. 70/2025
Order: 11 September 2026
Complaint filed: 4 July 2025
Amount ordered: ₹75,000
Breakdown: ₹20,000 compensation + ₹5,000 litigation costs + ₹50,000 punitive damages to the District Consumer Welfare Fund
Compliance period: 45 days from receipt of the order
The commission’s reasoning focused significantly on the evidence before it.
The order records that PVR did not deny or dispute that the film failed to start at the scheduled time and that advertisements and trailers continued until 10:52 PM. The commission also noted that PVR did not file documents rebutting the complainant’s evidence, which included a compact disc containing the advertisements.
On that basis, the commission held that the commercial advertisements were contrary to the two-minute limit referred to in the Ministry memorandum, were screened for commercial benefit and amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The order also records that citations submitted by PVR’s counsel under a separate memo were not considered because they “had not become final.”
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how consumer-protection law can apply to an ordinary cinema-going experience when the service delivered differs from what the consumer reasonably expected from the scheduled showtime.
A significant distinction in the commission’s reasoning was between public service awareness films referred to in the Ministry memorandum and commercial advertisements. The commission relied on the memorandum and the evidence regarding the actual screening timings in reaching its findings.
The order also demonstrates the practical importance of evidence. The complainant produced the ticket, the Ministry memorandum and a compact disc containing the advertisements. At the same time, the commission noted that PVR did not rebut the asserted timings through documentary evidence.
The relief granted also shows the different components available under Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The individual consumer received compensation and litigation costs, while the separate punitive damages amount was directed to the District Consumer Welfare Fund. The commission additionally ordered discontinuance of the practice.
PVR’s reliance on Article 19(1)(g) and K.C. Cinema forms part of the defence recorded in the order. The commission’s decision, however, rests on the Ministry memorandum and the evidence concerning the advertisements and timing. The order should therefore not be read as a broader ruling on the entire scope of Article 19(1)(g) in relation to cinema advertising.
As a District Consumer Commission order, the decision is also specific to the complaint and the findings recorded in that proceeding. It should not be treated as a binding precedent for all cinema chains or all pre-show advertising practices.
Closing
The Hyderabad commission’s order puts the focus on a basic consumer question: whether a scheduled cinema service was delivered in the manner represented to the consumer.
In this case, the commission found that the commercial advertisements and trailers continued beyond the scheduled start-time window and that the evidence before it established deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The final relief was ₹20,000 in compensation, ₹5,000 in litigation costs and ₹50,000 in punitive damages payable to the District Consumer Welfare Fund, along with a direction to discontinue and not repeat the practice.
Opportunities don’t wait. Neither should you.
Join 1 Lakh+ law students connected with Lexibal and stay updated with internships, opportunities, competitions and important updates.
Join WhatsApp Channel
