Why consumers are up in arms over steep food prices in multiplexes

Consumers last fortnight found a staunch supporter in the apex court in their ongoing battle against formidable food prices at multiplexes. While hearing a matter pertaining to the maximum price limit imposed by the Karnataka government on movie tickets, Justice Vikram Nath commented on the high cost of refreshments at multiplex cinemas. He observed that if they continue to charge such steep prices for tickets and food, their halls will run empty. His remarks that “You charge Rs 100 for water and Rs 700 for coffee” echoed consumer sentiments and reverberated across social media, raising hopes that the courts may intervene on behalf of consumers or the multiplex industry may listen to the Supreme Court judge’s sane advice!

Perhaps no other issue has generated as many complaints in consumer courts in the last decade and a half as the issue of multiplexes/cinema halls imposing exorbitant prices on food, water and beverages. Initially, consumer complaints pertained to overcharging on the maximum retail price (MRP) marked on bottled water and other beverages. Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules prohibits selling above the MRP.

As consumer courts started awarding compensation, and penalties were imposed for violations, the industry came up with ‘dual pricing’ or two different MRPs — one for the retail market and another highly inflated one for multiplexes.

Consumers fought against this too. In Big Cinemas vs Manoj Kumar, the apex consumer court not only frowned on differential pricing but also asked the Department of Legal Metrology to clamp down on dual pricing. “There cannot be two MRPs, except in accordance with the law,” the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said in its order of February 1, 2016. Big Cinemas challenged the Commission’s order before the Supreme Court and the verdict is awaited.

Meanwhile, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs decided to strengthen consumer protection by specifically prohibiting dual pricing of commodities, and in 2017 introduced Rule 18(2) (A) in the packaged commodities rules, effective from January 1, 2018. “…no manufacturer or packer or importer shall declare different maximum retail prices on an identical pre-packaged commodity by adopting restrictive trade practices or unfair trade practices,” the rule said.

But once again, multiplexes found a way to dodge the law. Here is a recent example. A 200 ml bottle of coconut water costs Rs 70 at retail outlets, but the same brand of coconut water costs Rs 200 at multiplexes. To ensure that the two are not ‘identical’, the bottle costing Rs 200 claims, through product label, that the quantity is 190 ml and the colour of the bottle is different. The extent of overpricing can be understood from the unit sale price marked on the label: while the bottle priced at Rs 70 costs 35 paise per ml, the other costs Rs 1.05 per ml! One can buy three bottles outside for the cost of one in a multiplex.

Exasperated by their continued exploitation, consumers have argued, through public interest litigations filed before high courts, that they be allowed to take food from outside into multiplexes and cinema halls. The Supreme Court, however, has put an end to all such arguments by setting aside the Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s order allowing consumers to carry their own food and beverages to theatres.

In its order of January 3, 2023, the Supreme Court also upheld the right of the theatre owners to prohibit patrons from bringing food and beverages from outside (KC Cinema vs State of Jammu and Kashmir).

The issue is simple. If cinema halls do not want consumers, particularly senior citizens and those who are diabetic (and that number is large in our country), to bring even a small bottle of water/beverage or an energy bar or a small packet of unsalted, unsweetened nuts and dry fruits, they must provide at least these basic necessities in their pre-packed form at the price at which they are available outside the theatres.

Denying these necessities through formidable pricing  to their patrons, cooped up in the theatre for three hours, is not just inhuman, but violative of consumer rights.

In fact, in PILs on the issue filed before high courts, consumers have also flagged the unhealthy menu on offer at these multiplexes and argued that banning outside food on one hand and offering junk food to captive audiences at steep prices on the other, is violative of their fundamental right to life, health and healthy food, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

At least now, multiplex owners should respond positively to consumer sentiments and stop this captive product pricing. Or else, they may well come under a law or a Supreme Court judgment that may take away their right to sell food inside multiplexes, let alone fix prices. Or a time may come when consumers decide to completely boycott them.

Today, consumers have several options for entertainment and are not dependent only on multiplexes, as they once did.