Kota, February 21 The Kota District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has issued a notice to a cinema hall over alleged discrepancies in the film's runtime and showing commercials beyond the scheduled showtime, officials said on Saturday.
The commission issued the notice on Friday and directed the cinema hall management to submit its reply by March 30.
A Kota-based lawyer, Sujeet Swami, in his complaint on December 11 last year, accused Cinepolis India Private Limited, which operates Cinepolis Fun Cinema at the city mall, of deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and misleading representation.
According to the complainant, he purchased a ticket for the Hindi film "Dhurandhar" on December 11, which indicated a showtime of 2 pm, an interval at 4.13 pm, and a conclusion at 5.48 pm, totaling 3 hours and 48 minutes.
He also alleged that they screened trailers, commercials, and public service announcements beforehand, and the film did not begin until 2.13 pm.
Pointing out a difference of only 14 minutes in the film's declared runtime against 3 hours and 34 minutes of runtime by the Central Board of Film Certification, he alleged that, with 28 minutes of advertisements screened, the representation of runtime was misleading.
Similarly, during the interval from 4.13 pm to 4.28 pm, they showed only advertisements, Swami said, adding that in total, the advertisements allegedly consumed nearly 28 minutes.
Delaying the film beyond the scheduled time and inserting commercials amounted to unfair treatment of consumers, Swami said.
A film, being a medium of expression, should be exhibited without unnecessary interference, he added.
Initially, Swami sent a legal notice to the cinema management on December 16. In response, the management justified the screening of advertisements but refrained from commenting on the allegations of runtime contradiction.
Subsequently, he lodged a formal complaint before the District Consumer Commission on December 23.
The commission, on Friday, issued a notice to the cinema and directed it to submit its reply by March 30.
The complaint seeks a refund of the ticket amount of Rs 230, compensation of Rs 20,000 for mental, professional, and financial inconvenience due to alleged service deficiency, and an additional Rs 1 lakh towards damages for misleading representation and litigation costs.