NCDRC praises lawyers for exposing malpractices at cinema hall

A group of lawyers have been awarded Rs one lakh compensation for being charged Rs 15 more than the maximum retail price of a soft drink can at a cinema hall in Agartala, with the apex consumer commission praising them for exposing such malpractices at the theatres.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) allowed the revision petition filed by advocate Arindam Kar and three other lawyers, observing that lawyers are "part and parcel of justice delivery system" and have "greater responsibility" in bringing out any malpractice.
The lawyers had alleged that they were charged Rs 40 for a Coca Cola can worth Rs 25 at a movie hall in the capital city of Tripura in 2014.

"It is appreciable that these advocates have highlighted the misdeeds being done on the premises of a public place and sought remedial action against the same. The action taken by them amounts to great service to the public at large," the bench headed by presiding member B C gupta said.
The NCDRC said that awareness must be spread about prices of commodities sold at public places so that people are not misled.
"It is made clear that the public at large must be made aware about the prices to be charged for any commodity sold on the premises of a public place like this cinema hall and proper receipts against the payment received should always be provided to them," it said.

It upheld the direction of a district forum that the Department of Legal Metrology of the state government shall play a proactive role in the matter and ensure proper checking of such establishments.

"It is observed that if the concerned public authorities perform their functions in a diligent manner, it shall ensure proper protection to the consumers and save them from the hassles of resorting to avoidable litigation," the bench said.
The district forum had in 2016 said that the cinema hall was not the seller of the soft drink cans and hence was not involved in any unfair trade practice.

The state commission had also refused to entertain the plea and asked the lawyers to be more conscious consumers and said they should not have purchased the soft drinks from an unnamed and un-bannered food outlet shop.
However, the NCDRC allowed the revision petition and said that the orders passed by both the consumer fora were perverse in the eyes of law.