Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeOther LawsPVR INOX Fined Rs.1.2 Lakh for Delaying Movie Screening with Excessive Ads

PVR INOX Fined Rs.1.2 Lakh for Delaying Movie Screening with Excessive Ads

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

In a landmark ruling for consumer rights, a Bengaluru consumer court has fined PVR INOX ₹1.2 lakh for delaying a movie screening by 25 minutes due to excessive advertisements. This decision sets a strong precedent against the exploitation of viewers’ time in cinemas.

Consumer Complaint Leads to Landmark Fine

A moviegoer had booked a 4:05 PM show for the film Sam Bahadur. However, the actual screening did not commence until 4:30 PM due to an extended ad segment. As per regulations, theatres can screen only 10 minutes of public service announcements (PSAs) before a film, but PVR INOX ran 25 minutes of ads, with only two out of 17 being PSAs.

Court Imposes ₹1.28 Lakh Penalty on PVR INOX

The court ruled in favor of the complainant, imposing a total penalty of ₹1.28 lakh, broken down as follows:

  • ₹1 lakh as punitive damages for violating consumer rights
  • ₹20,000 for mental agony caused to the viewer
  • ₹8,000 for litigation expenses

New Directives for Theatres

The court’s decision came with key directives aimed at protecting moviegoers:

  • Theatres must disclose the actual movie start time on tickets.
  • Theatres cannot exceed ad limits before screenings.
  • Ticketing platforms like BookMyShow are not liable for delays caused by cinemas.

Read More: Consolidated Notice Leads To Higher Pre-Deposit For Preferring Appeal: Kerala High Court

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

DRI Officers Competent To Issue Customs SCN: CESTAT Upholds Penalty For Conspiracy To Smuggle Prohibited R-22 Gas

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld customs...

Revenue-Neutral Reverse Charge Liability Cannot Justify Extended Limitation: CESTAT Restricts ₹27.27 Lakh Service Tax Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...

SEBI Can’t Be Compelled Under RTI Act to Collect Information From BSE: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Securities and Exchange Board of India...

IBBI Must Be Circumspect While Issuing SCN Due to Serious Impact on Insolvency Professionals: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has set aside an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India...

More like this

DRI Officers Competent To Issue Customs SCN: CESTAT Upholds Penalty For Conspiracy To Smuggle Prohibited R-22 Gas

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld customs...

Revenue-Neutral Reverse Charge Liability Cannot Justify Extended Limitation: CESTAT Restricts ₹27.27 Lakh Service Tax Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...

SEBI Can’t Be Compelled Under RTI Act to Collect Information From BSE: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Securities and Exchange Board of India...