PVR INOX ordered to pay ₹75,000 after ads delay Kubera screening by 22 minutes

A Hyderabad district consumer commission has held PVR Cinemas and PVR INOX Ltd responsible for delaying the scheduled screening of Telugu film Kubera by around 22 minutes because of commercial advertisements, trailers and public service awareness (PSA) content.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad, comprising President Vakkanti Narasimha Rao and Member Suma Vala, said deliberately representing a particular movie start time while continuing to screen non-essential commercial material amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The order was passed in Consumer Case No. 70/2025, Chanda Athish Kumar v. PVR Cinemas & Anr.

How the late-night screening was delayed

Advocate Chanda Athish Kumar had purchased two tickets for the 10:35 PM screening of Kubera on June 20, 2025, at PVR's Next Galleria Mall outlet in Moosarambagh.

According to Kumar, although the show was scheduled to begin at 10:35 PM, the theatre continued screening advertisements and promotional trailers until 10:52 PM. Mandatory PSA films were then shown, resulting in an overall delay of nearly 22 minutes before the feature film began.

Kumar told the commission that the delay had serious consequences because it pushed his return journey beyond 3:00 AM. He said the extended wait caused considerable inconvenience and exposed him to the risks associated with travelling late at night.

He also relied on an Office Memorandum issued by the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, arguing that approved and PSA films were subject to restrictions on their duration and timing. The ministry's November 30, 2023 guidelines provide that such films are to be screened within 10 minutes before a film begins and during the interval, while additional state-prescribed PSA content is normally restricted to two minutes. The ministry subsequently issued standard operating procedures in March 2024 to operationalise the guidelines.

PVR's constitutional defence rejected

PVR INOX defended the practice by arguing that the exhibition of commercials, trailers and PSAs formed part of its fundamental right to carry on trade and business under the Constitution.

The theatre chain relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, in which the court held that cinema halls constitute private property and owners can prescribe reasonable conditions of entry so long as those conditions do not conflict with public interest, safety or welfare.

The Hyderabad commission, however, did not accept this defence in the circumstances of the case.

It noted that the opposite parties had failed to effectively rebut Kumar's compact disc evidence, which demonstrated that commercial advertisements continued to play well after the scheduled commencement time of the film.

The commission therefore found that the continued screening of commercial advertisements beyond the permissible period constituted deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

The ministry's guidelines also make screening of approved and PSA films mandatory for cinema exhibitors, theatre owners and other specified entities, while prescribing when and for how long such content may be shown.

PVR INOX ordered to pay compensation and punitive damages

The commission partly allowed Kumar's complaint and directed PVR Cinemas and PVR INOX Ltd to jointly and severally pay him ₹20,000 as compensation for the inconvenience caused.

The companies were also ordered to pay ₹5,000 towards his litigation costs and deposit ₹50,000 as punitive damages with the District Consumer Welfare Fund. Taken together, the financial directions amount to ₹75,000.

The opposite parties were given 45 days to comply with the order. If the ₹20,000 compensation is not paid within that period, it will attract interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of default until realisation.

The commission further directed the theatre operators to discontinue the unfair and restrictive trade practice identified in the case and warned them against repeating it in future.

The order is a decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad, rather than a higher appellate court ruling. The case was decided on September 11, 2026.