‘PVR Delayed Movie by 25 Minutes with Ads’, Consumer Awarded Rs.1.28 Lakh in Court Ruling

The complainant, Abhishek MR, asserted that he lost approximately 25 minutes of his time during a PVR cinema showing.

A consumer court in Bengaluru has mandated that PVR Cinemas and INOX (now merged with PVR) must display the actual start time of movie screenings on tickets, instead of the time when commercial advertisements are presented before the film.

The ruling was issued by a panel led by President M Shobha, alongside members K Anita Shivakumar and Suma Anil Kumar, following a complaint filed by a cinema patron against PVR Cinemas, BookMyShow (Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.), and INOX.

The complainant, Abhishek MR, asserted that he lost approximately 25 minutes of his time during a PVR cinema showing, as he was subjected to lengthy commercial advertisements before the film “Sam Bahadur” in 2023.

He paid a total of 825.66 for a showtime scheduled at 4:05 PM at PVR Cinema and arrived at the theatre around 4 PM.

Contrary to the scheduled start time, PVR Cinemas displayed advertisements and trailers from 4:05 PM until 4:28 PM, with the main feature commencing at 4:30 PM.

This delay impacted his return to work as he had originally intended after the movie.

The district consumer forum concluded that BookMyShow should not be held responsible in this matter, as it does not have authority over the scheduling of movie showtimes or the advertisements aired before the films.

“In the new era, time is considered as money, each one’s time is very precious, no one has right to gain benefit out of others time and money. 25-30 (minutes) is no less to sit idle in the theatre and watch whatever the theatre telecasts. It is very hard for busy people with tight schedules to watch unnecessary advertisements. However, they make their own arrangements to get some relaxation with family. (This does) not mean that people have no other work to do,” says the consumer forum.

Nevertheless, it determined that PVR and INOX must cease the unfair practice of wasting moviegoers’ time by presenting lengthy commercial advertisements during the designated time for the film screening.

The following directives were issued to PVR and Inox:

• Cinema tickets must clearly state the actual movie start times for the general public. PVR and Inox are required to cease any unfair trade practices and refrain from displaying advertisements beyond the scheduled showtimes indicated on the tickets.
• Furthermore, the district consumer forum mandated that PVR Cinemas and Inox compensate the complainant with 20,000 for the mental distress and inconvenience caused, along with an additional 8,000 to cover the costs incurred in filing the complaint.
• In addition, PVR Cinemas and Inox were instructed to pay 1 lakh in punitive damages for their unfair trade practices. This amount is to be submitted to the consumer welfare fund within 30 days, as per the order issued on February 15.

PVR Cinemas and INOX justified their actions by stating that theaters are required by law to display public service announcements (PSAs) to raise awareness about significant social issues, as directed by both Central and State governments.

The consumer forum concurred that there was no issue with the presentation of these PSAs; however, it noted that the government’s guidelines specify that the total duration of these announcements should not surpass 10 minutes.

Furthermore, the consumer forum indicated that these PSAs could be shown before the scheduled movie start time indicated on the tickets.

In the current case, the consumer forum determined that 95 percent of the advertisements shown before the movie attended by the complainant were commercial ads rather than government public service announcements.

Additionally, the forum dismissed PVR Cinemas’ claim that the complainant had breached anti-piracy laws by recording the advertisements during the Sam Bahadur screening.

The commission clarified that the complainant only recorded the commercial advertisements and not the film itself. It emphasized that his actions were justified, as many other movie-goers encounter the same problem. Therefore, it concluded that his actions could not be classified as illegal.

Furthermore, the commission rejected the arguments from PVR and INOX suggesting that lengthy advertisements could be advantageous for latecomers who might need to undergo security checks at the theater entrance.

The commission argued that it is unjust for punctual movie-goers to be forced to endure extended advertisements solely for the benefit of those arriving late.