Movie theatres told not to charge parking fee

Movie theatres told not to charge parking fee
x
Highlights

Upholding the judgment delivered by the Vijayawada District Consumer Forum on the collection of parking fee by the movie theatres across the State

Vijayawada: Upholding the judgment delivered by the Vijayawada District Consumer Forum on the collection of parking fee by the movie theatres across the State, the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission headed by its president Justice T Sunil Chowdary and members B Srinivasa Rao and D Srinivas asserted that there is deficiency of service in collecting parking fee by the movie theatres from the consumers. In other words, the movie theatres and multiplexes should provide free parking to the movie goers. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the PVR Mall.

It may be recalled that the joint secretary of Consumers Guidance Society M V Syam Sundar filed a consumer case in 2018 in the Vijayawada district forum stating that the PVR Multiplex has collected parking fee from him which is deficiency of service. He argued that it is the responsibility of the multiplex to provide parking facility to the moviegoers. Secretary of the Consumers Guidance Society Dr Ch Divakar Babu appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted various judgments and the order of the joint collector not to collect parking fee from the consumers.

The respondent PVR Multiplex contended that it has nothing to do with managing the parking in the mall. However, the district forum delivering the judgment in 2019, stated that the multiplex could not shrug off its responsibility of providing free parking. It was also pointed out that the Joint Collector of Krishna district issued directions not to collect any parking fee from moviegoers.

Delivering the judgment orally on October 12 and releasing the judgment copy on Monday, the Commission stated that the findings recorded by the District Forum are based on sound reasoning and logical conclusion. "There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which warrants interference of the State Commission."

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENTS