J K BABBAR Vs. PICCADILY CINEMA HALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.