ARINDAM KAR Vs. PROPRIETOR, RUPASHI CINEMA HALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.05.2016, passed by the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. A/03/2016, "Arindam Kar versus Proprietor, Rupashi Cinema Hall", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 06.01.2016, passed by the District Forum Agartala in consumer complaint No. CC/14/2015, filed by the present petitioner/complainant, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Arindam Kar is a practising Advocate at Agartala, Tripura and a member of the local Bar Association. On 20.10.2014, the complainant, alongwith his three other Advocate colleagues, went to the premises of the Opposite Party (OP)/respondent, Rupashi Cinema Hall to watch a movie "Chotuskone" (Bengali) being screened in that Cinema Hall, and for that purpose, they purchased 4 tickets of Rs.50/- each, amounting to Rs.200/-. Before entering the cinema hall of screen-I, the complainant went to the food outlet situated at the same floor of the premises for buying drinks and snacks. It is stated that the said food outlet did not have any banner etc., displaying their name, but it was a part and parcel of the Rupashi Cinema Hall. The complainant purchased four cans of Coca-Cola, for which he was charged a sum of Rs.160/-, @Rs.40/- for each can. The complainant asked receipt for the payment made by him, but the staff at that shop refused to provide him any money receipt. The complainant went inside the cinema hall to watch the movie. During interval, one of their colleagues noticed that the maximum retail price (MRP) of the Coca-Cola can was mentioned as Rs.25/- on each can. The complainant went to the food outlet again, enquiring about overcharging for the cold drinks, but he was told that they had to pay some cost and other expenses etc. to the OP, Rupashi Cinema Hall and hence, they were charging more than the MRP printed on the product. The complainant issuing a legal notice to the OP/Respondent on 22.10.2014, alleging harassment at the hands of the OP. However, the OP/respondent replied on 27.10.2014, saying that there were many rented shops in the said premises and the shop-keepers had valid trade licence and separate identity. In this manner, the matter was between the shop-keeper and the customer and the OP Rupashi Cinema Hall were not involved in any manner. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging that some other food outlets on the premises had their names displayed, but the food outlet from where they purchased the Coca-Cola cans, did not display any name or separate identity, which could separate it from the Rupashi Cinema Hall. The complainant sought directions to the OP Rupashi Cinema Hall through the consumer complaint to award them a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for mental harassment and damage to the reputation of the complainant alongwith litigation cost.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP Rupashi Cinema Hall by filing their written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the said complaint was not maintainable against them, as no cause of action had accrued to the complainant against them. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP Rupashi Cinema Hall. The OP/respondent denied all the facts and allegations listed in the complaint, and even the visit of the complainant to the Rupashi Cinema Hall to watch the movie on that day. They further denied that the food outlet in question was a part and parcel of the Rupashi Cinema Hall.