LAWS(NCD)-2015-8-45

RUPASI MULTIPLEX Vs. MAUTUSI CHAUDHURI AND ORS.

Decided On August 10, 2015
Rupasi Multiplex Appellant
V/S
Mautusi Chaudhuri And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 04.11.2014 the respondents/complainants purchased tickets for watching a movie at a cinema hall owned by the petitioner, paying a sum of Rs.330/- for the purpose. They were not allowed to carry drinking water inside the cinema hall, though the ticket contained no prohibition on carrying water inside the cinema hall. Alleging deficiency in the services and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner, they approached the concerned District Forum, seeking compensation from the petitioner.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that carrying water inside the hall has been restricted for security reasons since it is not possible for the management of the cinema hall to verify or check whether any restricted liquid had been mixed with the drinking water in the container / bottle. It was further stated in the reply that water facility was available just near the entry gate of the hall in the lobby. According to the petitioner / opposite party, the aforesaid restriction has been imposed from the security point of view so that no one is able to carry prohibited or dangerous liquid inside the bottle / container, which is stated to contain drinking water.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 02.06.2014 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 10.9.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in the service, along with the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1000/-. The petitioner was also directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum with effect from thirty days from the date of the order. The petitioner was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of appeal in the Legal-Aid-Account of the State Commission. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before us by way of this Revision Petition.