Cinema Hall Which Charged Parking Fee Directed To Compensate Movie-Goer By AP District Consumer Commission

While granting relief to the complainant, the Commission observed that that the theatre complex "Inox-Urvasi Complex" was having 3 screens and hence came within the definition of "multiplex complex" as G.O. MS 486 dated 07.07.2007 issued by the State Government.  

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party cinema hall not having mall. But having a cinema complex doing commercial activity by running cinema hall with three (3) screens should provide parking to the customers of cinema theatre to provide parking space to keep their vehicles without charges.”

The complainant was a practising advocate based in Vijayawada. In 2019, he booked a movie ticket in Inox-Urvasi Complex. He went on his bike and parked the same in the parking facility provided by the hall, for which he was charged Rs. 15.

He complained against it. He alleged that the hall is collecting parking fees from the movie-goers without possessing any authority on that behalf. Hence, according to him, it constituted deficiency in service for which he suffered mental agony. Therefore, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada for redressal of his grievances.

It was submitted for the cinema hall that all establishments, irrespective of being government or private, impose a fee for providing parking services. So, their cinema hall is similarly placed with such establishments and therefore, singling out them to put restrictions on imposition of parking fees will amount to violation right to equality as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Further, it was stated that the provision of parking fee is a commercial activity which is a part of cinema hall’s right to freedom of trade and occupation and thus, protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

It was argued that in the absence of any legislation to prohibit the cinema hall from charging parking fee, it is impermissible to put restrictions on carrying out commercial activities and charging fees in exchange of parking facilities. Also, it was submitted that the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation has itself issued a ‘trade license’ in favour of the cinema hall to charge for parking.

Furthermore, it was also stated that the persons who visit the cinema hall on their vehicles, entrust the security of the vehicles to the hall. To provide the facility, the hall incurs a lot of expenses on different fronts like security personnel, hygiene, cleanliness, lighting etc. Therefore, it entitles the mall to charge fees as consideration for the aforementioned services.

It was argued on behalf of the cinema hall that their complex is not a multiplex theatre and therefore, will not come under the purview of Government Order 486 dated 07.07.2007. Under that order, the term ‘multiplex complex’ is defined as “an integrated entertainment and shopping centre/complex or a shopping mall and having at least three (3) cinema halls/screens…”

After perusing the above definition, the Commission was of the view that ‘multiplex complex’ includes different types of activities having a shopping mall and at least three (3) cinema halls/screens. It noted that though the opposite party has three screens in its cinema hall, it has no shopping mall.

However, it held, as the notification in its para 3 speaks about having three (3) screens in cinema hall, the opposite party will fall under the term ‘multiplex complex’ as it admittedly has three screens in its hall. Therefore, the Commission directed that the cinema hall shall not charge any fee for parking from those persons who visit the complex for watching cinema.

It directed the cinema hall to refund Rs. 15/- which was charged from the complainant towards parking fee. The Commission also asked it to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand rupees) and Rs. 2000/- (two thousand rupees) towards the litigation costs.

Also Read - Malls Can't Collect Car Parking Fee : Kerala High Court Makes Prima Facie View In Lulu Mall Case
Malls, Multiplexes Cannot Charge Parking Fee : Gujarat HC [Read Judgment]

Case Title: Kolluru Giridhar v. The Manager, INOX Leisure Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: C.C. No. 33 of 2019

Counsel for Complainant: Mr. K. Giridhar, Party-in-Person

Counsel for Opposite Parties: Mr. P. Badrinath, Advocate