The Bangalore District Consumer Commission's ruling that PVR Cinemas must compensate a complainant for displaying lengthy advertisements rather than showing films at the scheduled time was temporarily stayed by way of interim relief till March 27 by the Karnataka High Court single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna.

The case in contention was that a complainant had paid Rs. 825.66 to reserve three tickets for himself and his family to see the film "Sam Bahadur" at PVR Cinemas in Bangalore. The film was scheduled to begin at 4:05 p.m. and run for two hours and twenty-five minutes, but the complainant sat for an additional twenty-five minutes as commercial advertisements were being shown before the actual start of the movie.

The complainant had stated before the forum that he had suffered losses that were incalculable in monetary terms. It was argued that the Opposite Parties had committed a failure in service by showing the film beyond the time of the scheduled screening.

Upon reviewing the complaint and averments plea, the forum stated that advertisements should have been aired by the theater authorities before 4:05 PM and not beyond that time. The Commission determined that the Complainant had raised a valid concern, as many others were likely affected on the day the movie was scheduled to be screened in the theatre.

The forum also observed that the opposite parties had breached the government order, which permitted theatres to screen only ten minutes of public service announcements and welfare schemes of the Central and State Governments. Furthermore, it was determined that theatre owners were obligated to adhere to the timings specified on the tickets. In this instance, the movie was required to commence at 4:05 PM, as indicated on the complainant's ticket.

Consequently, the Commission instructed the theatre authorities to ensure that cinema tickets issued to the public clearly display the actual movie time. Additionally, PVR Cinemas and PVR Inox Ltd. were ordered to compensate the complainant with ₹20,000 for mental distress and inconvenience, along with ₹8,000 to cover litigation costs. Over and above, PVR Cinemas was also directed to pay ₹1,00,000 as punitive damages, which was to be deposited into the Consumer Welfare Fund.

The counsel for petitioners in the High Court argued that the council had no jurisdiction to do this. The High Court observed that the Consumer Forum had entertained the petitioner’s plea and adjudicated the complaint as though it possessed jurisdiction similar to that of a public interest petition. It further noted that the forum engaged in an unwarranted discourse on how a movie screening should be conducted and issued directions prohibiting theatres from displaying advertisements, deeming such practices to be unfair trade. The High Court held that these directives were, on the face of it, beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.

Rejecting the government's argument that the petitioners had an appellate remedy before the State Consumer Forum, the High Court asserted that the availability of such an appeal would not restrain the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that judicial intervention was warranted in cases where a forum or court had acted in clear and blatant excess of its jurisdiction.

Case Title: Multiplex Association of India & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others WP 5877/2025