In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a consumer case filed against Malayalam film superstar Mohanlal. The case was related to his role as a brand ambassador for a private financial institution.
Court's Decision on Celebrity Liability
The High Court bench, led by Justice A A Ziyad Rahman, set aside the complaint against the actor. The court held that Mohanlal cannot be held responsible for alleged unfair trade practices or deficiency in service by the institution merely because he endorsed it in advertisements.
The order stated that unless the actor had a direct nexus with the specific transaction in question, no liability could be attached to him for the company's actions. This came as a relief to the actor, who had challenged the maintainability of the complaint from the outset.
Background of the Consumer Complaint
The case originated from a complaint filed before the Ernakulam District Consumer Forum by Manu Kamal and K S Sylesh, both natives of Thiruvananthapuram. They had taken a loan from the private financial institution, pledging their wives' gold ornaments for business purposes.
The complainants alleged that the branch manager demanded interest at rates higher than what was permissible. They sought a refund of the excess interest and compensation of Rs 25 lakh for the losses suffered.
Mohanlal was named as a respondent in the complaint solely because he was the institution's brand ambassador. The actor challenged this inclusion, but both the district forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed his plea, stating the complaint was maintainable against him. This prompted him to approach the High Court.
Legal Arguments and Final Outcome
Before the High Court, Mohanlal's counsel argued that the actor was not involved in any transaction connected to the complaint. They contended that even if the complainants succeeded against the financial institution, no relief could be granted against the brand ambassador personally.
The High Court agreed with this contention. The bench allowed Mohanlal's petition, quashing the consumer complaint filed against him. It also set aside the earlier orders passed by the two consumer commissions that had held the complaint was maintainable.
However, the court made an important clarification. It stated that its observations would not prejudice the complainants' claims against the financial institution itself. Furthermore, the court noted that if the complainants had any grievance regarding the nature of the advertisements, they were free to approach the competent authority for redressal.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment sets a precedent regarding the extent of liability for celebrities who endorse brands in India. It underscores that endorsement alone does not create liability for the company's operational failures or alleged unfair practices, in the absence of a direct connection to the disputed transaction.
The ruling provides clarity for the advertising and entertainment industries, where brand ambassadorships are common. It distinguishes the promotional role of an ambassador from the executive and operational responsibilities of the service provider.
