Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

Nearly two and a half decades after the engulfing fire, the Uphaar Cinema Tragedy case is again in the limelight. A Consumer Court cited one of the many observations of the case to provide relief to a cinema goer in Assam.

According to the complainant, on October 20, 2018, she had gone to Galleria Cinemas at Bhangagarh in Guwahati with her family. She alleged that the cinema hall was not properly managed by authorities. Empty bottles, leftover popcorns and other waste materials could easily be seen accumulated behind the seats. After the interval, she noticed that something bit her on foot and it was bleeding. Looking at the condition of the movie hall, she assumed it to be snakebite.

Complainant quickly rushed to nearby hospital where she was kept under observation for 2 hours for a rat bite. The woman was later administered rabies shots and prescribed medicines. In her complaint, she said that these medicines are of strong doses and caused difficulty, hampering her efficiency.

Complainant was also aggrieved by contemptuous behaviour shown by cinema hall authorities. According to her, no person representing the cinema hall was there to accompany her to the hospital, even though the shift manager had agreed to do so. Apparently, she and her husband also tried to settle the incident, but two deputy managers refused to do so. They offered her free movie tickets whereas what she needed was first aid.

She then approached to Kamrup District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC). She demanded Rs 6,02,282.48 from cinema hall authorities. It includes respective sums of Rs 3,50,000 and Rs 2,50,000 compensation for mental agony and pain and suffering along with her mental suffering.

On their part, cinema hall managers contended that the woman had refused to take first aid and go to the nearest hospital. They alleged that the complainant only wanted to harass them. They also contested the claim that the cinema hall was not cleaned. Instead they submitted that pest control and other measures to maintain hygiene is a standard practice. Consequently, they asked the Commission to reduce the compensation amount to Rs 15,000. 

However, they did not provide any document to refute the allegations by the complainant. On the contrary, the woman had various documents proving her visit to Nemcare hospital and having been administered Rabies dose.

The pertinent question was whether the hall authorities could be held liable for the rat bite. Only after establishing that, a compensatory mechanism could be established. The Bench comprising President AFA Bora, and members Archana Deka Lakhar and Tutumoni Deva Goswami relied on Uphaar Cinema Fire Tragedy case to establish their liability.
“What is important is that the duty to care is not a one time affair. It is a continuing obligation which the occupier owes towards every invitee contractual or otherwise every time an exhibition of the cinematograph takes place. What is equally important is that not only under the common law but even under the statutory regimen, the obligation to ensure safety of the invitees is undeniable, and any neglect of the duty is actionable both as a civil and criminal wrong, depending upon whether the negligence is simple or gross.” 

Relying on the above ratio and thorough reading of evidence and oral testimonies at disposal, Consumer Court concluded that there is no regular sweeping after each show. Food, popcorn and other items being regularly present on the floor are the reason why rabbits are moving around. It is due to lack of proper hygiene and supervision to ensure the safety and hygienic condition of the cinema hall.

Establishing liability under Cinematograph Act, the Consumer Court said, “As such we are of the view that the opp. parties were negligent in maintaining the hygienic condition of the cinema hall for giving proper service to the viewers as required under Cinematography Act and other obligations of the owners of the hall,” the Court said

However, the Court reduced the amount of compensation sought by the complainant. For mental agony, she is to be paid Rs 40,000 while for pain and suffering, Rs 20,000 has to be paid to her. Ultimately, the hall authorities were directed to pay a cumulative compensation amount of Rs 67,282 to the complainant within 45 days. Failing in timely compensation would entail an interest of 12 per cent per annum.