PVR Cinemas and PVR Inox Ltd have been ordered by the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to pay ₹70,000 after commercial advertisements and promotional trailers delayed the start of a film screening by nearly 22 minutes. The commission also directed the theatre chain to stop the practice and ensure that the identified unfair trade practices are not repeated.
The commission ordered ₹20,000 in compensation to advocate Chanda Athish Kumar and directed PVR Cinemas and PVR Inox to deposit ₹50,000 as punitive damages into the District Consumer Welfare Fund. The compensation must be paid within 45 days. If the amount is not paid within that period, it will carry interest at 9 per cent per annum.
Kumar had purchased two tickets for a 10:35 pm screening of the Telugu film Kubera on June 20, 2025. According to his complaint, he and a friend reached the theatre at about 10:30 pm and took their seats, expecting the film to begin shortly. Instead, commercial advertisements and promotional trailers continued to play, with the film eventually starting at around 10:52 pm.
Kumar told the commission that the delay affected his journey home. He said he reached home at about 3 am rather than the expected 2 am, causing inconvenience, disrupting personal commitments and rest, and exposing him to the risks associated with late-night travel. He argued that the extended display of commercial advertisements amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The complaint also referred to an Office Memorandum issued by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting concerning the mandatory screening of approved public service awareness films. Kumar relied on the memorandum’s two-minute limit for such films and alleged that the theatre had exceeded the permitted duration to generate additional commercial revenue. The complaint was filed on July 4, 2025 under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
PVR Inox defended the practice, arguing that the display of commercials, trailers and public service awareness films formed part of its right to carry on trade and business under the Constitution. The company relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in KC Cinema v State of Jammu & Kashmir and contended that cinema halls are private property entitled to set reasonable terms serving social welfare.
The theatre company also said that the public service content shown before films promoted issues including education, agriculture, women’s welfare and cleanliness campaigns. It argued that cinema audiences were a suitable captive audience for such messages because viewers were already seated inside the theatre.
The Hyderabad commission rejected the defence, observing that the opposite parties had failed to rebut the complainant’s evidence that commercial advertisements were being screened well after the scheduled film commencement time. It held that continuing to show commercial advertisements beyond the scheduled start amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The order also requires PVR Cinemas and PVR Inox to discontinue the practice and prevent a repetition of the unfair and restrictive practices identified in the case. The directions place the scheduled screening time, rather than the eventual start of the feature film, at the centre of the consumer dispute.
