Priyathama Movie House
This is a discussion on Priyathama Movie House within the Cinema forums, part of the Entertainment category; Rajeev.P.A S/o. Manickyan Nair Punnassery House Puthenchira (P.O) Thrissur - Complainant V/s 1. The Proprietor Priyathama Movie House Palakkad. 2. ...
- 09-14-2009, 12:15 AM #1
Priyathama Movie House
S/o. Manickyan Nair
Thrissur - Complainant
1. The Proprietor
Priyathama Movie House
2. The Municipal Secretary
Palakkad. - Opposite Parties
O R D E R
On 31/08/2007, Complainant took a Rs.20/- ticket for watching movie 'Orekadal' at 5.30 P M show in the Ist Opposite party theatre. He got seat in the front row of the A circle which is having 2 rows. According to the complainant, there was only a distance of 2 metres from his seat to the screen. The length of the screen was of 10 metre and width 5 metre. It was fixed on a foundation of about 1 metre high. Complainant could not watch the movie properly sitting in his seat. Complainant choose to sit on the floor and watch the movie After sometime he felt pain in his eyes and neck. Hence he went out of the theatre without watching the entire movie. Without providing minimum distance from the seat to the screen, the Opposite parties has committed deficiency in service and hence the complainant prays Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. According to the Ist
- 2 -
Opposite party, all seats were arranged as per cinematographic Act and rules. There are two rows of 51 seats in the A circle in which back row is of 27 seats and front row is of 24 seats. There is a distance of 13 feet from the front row seat to the screen and the screen is fixed at a height of 6.5 feet from the ground floor where seats are fixed. The say of the complainant that the screen is fixed at a distance of 2 metre and height of the screen from the ground floor is 1 metre is absolutely wrong. Further Ist opposite party has issued only 17 number of tickets in the A circle on that particular show. There are 27 seats in the back row and 24 seats in the front row seat. Complainant has an option to occupy a seat in 2nd row. Instead he choose to sit on the floor. If at all any pain is suffered, it is only because of the act of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
The evidence adduced consists of the affidavit and Exhibit A1 marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibit B1 marked on the side of Ist Opposite party. Commissioner was appointed to take the disputed measurements in the theater. Commissioner report marked as Exhibit C1.
Issues for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?
Points 1 & 2
We have heard the complainant and learned counsels for the opposite parties. Commissioner has reported in Exhibit C1 that the distance between screen and the front row seat is 4 metre 4 centimetre and distance to the screen from the ground is 6 feet 4 ½ inches. Rule 98 & 99 of The Kerala Cinema (Regulation ) Rules 1988, provides that there shall be a minimum distance of 4 metres from the screen to the front edge of first row of seating and the screen shall be fixed in such a way that its bottom shall not be at a height of more than 2.1 metres above the ground level of the front row of accomodation. IInd Opposite party stated that Ist opposite party has complied the provisions regarding the measurements. According to the The Kerala Cinema (Regulation) Act, Rules 98, the
- 3 -
distance between the screen and the front row of the chair should be 4 metres and the distance from the ground level of front row to the bottom of the screen will be 2.10 metres. Since the Ist Opposite party has complied with the said provisions, 2nd Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.
On verification it can be seen that the measurements of Ist Opposite party Cinema theatre is in accordance with The Kerala Cinema (Regulation) Rule 1988. Further the complainant instead of sitting in any other convenient place opted to sit in the floor which resulted in pain in neck and eyes. For the said act of the complainant, the opposite parties cannot be made liable.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
- By Atul Tyagi. in forum CinemaReplies: 4Last Post: 04-25-2012, 10:42 AM
- By Bhupender Singh Sohal in forum BooksReplies: 0Last Post: 07-16-2009, 09:35 AM
- By Unregistered in forum PricingReplies: 2Last Post: 04-15-2009, 07:19 PM