Mohanlal not liable in consumer case against Manappuram Finance merely because he is brand ambassador: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has quashed a consumer court case against popular Malayalam actor Mohanlal in connection with his appearance as a brand ambassador in advertisements by Manappuram Finance [Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v State of Kerala & ors]..Justice Ziyad Rahman AA held that the actor cannot be held liable for consumer complaints about Manappuram's services merely because he endorsed it in ads. The Court observed that an endorser can be made responsible only if there is a direct link between the celebrity and the actual disputed transaction.The Judge emphasised that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, limited an endorser's liability mainly to proceedings under Section 21, which deals with misleading advertisements.The Court further stated that this law did not permit fastening the liability on a celebrity endorser in ordinary consumer complaints unless there was a personal involvement of the celebrity in endorsing the services or a direct link to the transaction referred to in the consumer complaint."Merely because, a person falls within the definition 'endorser' he cannot be mulcted with the liability for unfair trade practice or deficiency of service, unless the direct link between the relevant transaction and the endorser is established," the Court's ruling said..Mohanlal had approached the High Court challenging orders of the Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Commission in the matter.The consumer fora had refused to drop him as a party to a consumer case against Manappuram Finance.The consumer case arose from a complaint filed by two borrowers who had pledged gold ornaments initially with Catholic Syrian Bank but later transferred their loans to Manappuram Finance after being promised a lower rate of interest.The complainants alleged that they were assured that only 12 per cent per annum would be charged as interest, as promoted in advertisements featuring Mohanlal. However, when they sought to close the loan and retrieve the gold, they were allegedly charged a higher interest rate. They opposed this in consumer complaints, wherein they sought a refund of excess interest paid as well as compensation of ₹25 lakhs for mental agony and losses..Mohanlal contended that he had no role in the loan transaction and that he merely acted as a brand ambassador.The district consumer commission rejected his objection and the State commission declined to interfere, given the stage of the consumer case proceedings.When the matter came up before the High Court, it found that Mohanlal was only referred to in the complaint twice, where he was merely referred to as the brand ambassador. Further, the complainants' own pleadings pointed to the finance company as the party that had given them the assurance of a lower rate of interest.Thus, the Court observed that there was nothing to show that the borrowers were persuaded to take the loan because of Mohanlal's endorsement of Manappuram Finance through advertisements..It also addressed the allegation of unfair trade practice and observed that even if the advertisement was misleading, the failure to honour the promised interest rate could only be attributed to the service provider and not the actor or the endorser.Accordingly, the Court held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against Mohanlal.However, it clarified that the complainants were free to pursue their claims against the finance company.The Court added that if the complainants had any grievance regarding any misleading content in advertisements, they could approach the competent authority under Section 21 of the Act..Advocates BS Suresh Kumar and George Sebastian represented Mohanlal, Advocates KS Arundas appeared for the complainants..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.