# Hyderabad Consumer Commission Orders PVR, PVR INOX to Pay ₹20,000 for Movie Screening Delay Due to Ads The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad, has directed PVR Cinemas and PVR INOX Ltd. to pay ₹20,000 as compensation after finding that excessive commercial advertisements and promotional trailers delayed the scheduled screening of the Telugu film *Kubera* by approximately 22 minutes. In **Chanda Athish Kumar v. PVR Cinemas & Anr.**, Consumer Case No. 70/2025, the commission held that the screening of commercial advertisements beyond the permissible period, resulting in a delay in the commencement of the feature film, amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. ## Facts of the Case The complainant, Chanda Athish Kumar, an advocate residing in Hyderabad, purchased two tickets for the Telugu film *Kubera* on 20 June 2025 for ₹500. The show was scheduled to commence at 10:35 PM. According to the complaint, the complainant and his friend occupied their allotted seats before the scheduled screening time. However, instead of beginning the feature film at the advertised time, the theatre continued screening advertisements and movie trailers until approximately 10:52 PM. The feature film commenced only thereafter, following the screening of public service awareness films. The complainant contended that the delay caused considerable inconvenience and disrupted his planned return home. He alleged that the prolonged advertisements amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. ## Contentions of PVR Cinemas and PVR INOX PVR Cinemas and PVR INOX Ltd. denied the allegations and argued that screening advertisements, promotional trailers and public service announcements formed part of their business operations. They also relied on their constitutional right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The companies maintained that such screenings should not automatically be treated as a deficiency in service. ## Commission’s Observations The commission considered the scheduled showtime, the evidence concerning the advertisements and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s Office Memorandum dated 30 November 2023 concerning the screening of approved public service awareness films. It observed that the feature film had not commenced at the scheduled time and that the opposite parties had failed to effectively rebut the evidence produced by the complainant regarding the delay. The commission distinguished between permissible public service awareness content and prolonged commercial advertising. It found that the practice, in the circumstances of the case, amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. ## Decision and Directions The commission partly allowed the complaint and issued the following directions: * **₹20,000 as compensation** to the complainant for the inconvenience caused. * **₹5,000 towards litigation costs** payable to the complainant. * **₹50,000 as punitive damages**, to be deposited with the District Consumer Welfare Fund. * The companies were directed to discontinue the unfair and restrictive trade practices identified in the order and refrain from repeating them. The companies were given 45 days to comply with the directions. In the event of default, interest at 9% per annum would apply to the compensation amount, as specified in the order. ## Legal Significance The decision highlights the role of consumer protection law in addressing delays and potentially misleading service practices in commercial entertainment services. It also underscores the importance of distinguishing mandatory public service awareness content from commercial advertisements when assessing complaints about delayed screenings. The ruling serves as a reminder that commercial practices must comply with applicable legal requirements and that consumers may seek redressal where a service provider’s conduct amounts to deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice. **Case:** Chanda Athish Kumar v. PVR Cinemas & Anr. **Case No.:** Consumer Case No. 70/2025 **Forum:** District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad **Legislation:** Consumer Protection Act, 2019