The Kerala High Court ruled that a celebrity cannot be held liable for alleged deficiencies in services merely for acting as a brand ambassador. The Court quashed the consumer case against actor Mohanlal arising from Manappuram Finance advertisements.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: The Kerala High Court has quashed a consumer complaint filed against popular Malayalam actor Mohanlal, holding that a celebrity cannot be held liable for alleged deficiencies in services merely because he appeared as a brand ambassador in advertisements.
The ruling came in Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala & Others, delivered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., clarifying the scope of liability of celebrity endorsers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a consumer complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, by two borrowers who had availed gold loans.
The complainants had initially pledged their gold ornaments with Catholic Syrian Bank at an interest rate of 15% per annum. Subsequently, their loan accounts were taken over by Manappuram Finance on 31.03.2018 and 13.04.2018, respectively, on the assurance of a lower rate of interest.
According to the complainants, Manappuram Finance assured them that the interest rate would be 12% per annum, which was stated to be in line with the rate promoted in advertisements featuring actor Mohanlal, who was serving as the brand ambassador of the finance company at the relevant time.
When the complainants later approached Manappuram Finance to close their loan accounts and retrieve the pledged gold ornaments, they were allegedly demanded to pay interest at a rate higher than what was assured. Aggrieved by this, they approached the consumer forum seeking a refund of the alleged excess interest collected and compensation amounting to ₹25 lakh for mental agony and other losses.
Mohanlal was arrayed as the 2nd opposite party solely on the ground that he appeared in the advertisements.
Mohanlal’s Challenge Before the High Court
Mohanlal approached the Kerala High Court challenging the orders of the District Consumer Commission and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had refused to drop him as a party to the proceedings.
He contended that:
- He had no role in the loan transaction,
- He was merely a brand ambassador, and
- The Consumer Protection Act does not permit fastening liability on endorsers in ordinary consumer complaints.
Legal Issue
Can a celebrity brand ambassador be held liable in a consumer complaint for alleged deficiency of service by a company?
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Refuses to Ban Mohanlal’s Empuraan: L2, Calls Plea “Publicity Oriented”
High Court’s Observations
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. made several important observations:
1. Limited Liability of Endorsers Under Consumer Protection Act
The Court held that the liability of an endorser is primarily governed by Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which deals with false or misleading advertisements.
“Merely because a person falls within the definition of ‘endorser’, he cannot be mulcted with liability for unfair trade practice or deficiency of service unless a direct link between the transaction and the endorser is established.”
2. No Direct Link Between Mohanlal and the Loan Transaction
The Court noted that:
- Mohanlal was mentioned only twice in the complaint.
- Both references merely identified him as a brand ambassador.
- The complainants’ own pleadings showed that Manappuram Finance, not Mohanlal, assured the interest rate.
There was no evidence that:
- The borrowers were persuaded to take the loan solely because of Mohanlal’s endorsement, or
- Mohanlal had any personal involvement in the transaction.
3. Unfair Trade Practice Attributable Only to Service Provider
Even assuming the advertisement was misleading, the Court held that:
- Any failure to honour the promised interest rate could only be attributed to the finance company.
- An endorser cannot be blamed for a deficiency of service unless personally involved.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission insofar as they related to the petitioner. The Court held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against the actor, as no direct link was established between him and the loan transaction in question.
ALSO READ: Kerala HC Urges Action on Bigg Boss Violence, Notifies Mohanlal, Disney, Asianet
At the same time, the Court made it clear that its findings were confined only to the liability of the petitioner as the second opposite party. The complainants were left at liberty to pursue their remedies against Manappuram Finance, the service provider, in accordance with the law.
The Court further clarified that if the complainants had any grievance relating to the nature or content of the advertisements, it would be open to them to invoke the appropriate remedy before the competent authority under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Appearance:
Mohanlal: Advocates BS Suresh Kumar and George Sebastian
Complainants: Advocates KS Arundas
Case Title:
Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v State of Kerala & ors
WP(C) NO. 31700 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mohanlal
