The Kerala High Court has ruled that Malayalam film star Mohanlal Viswanathan, who acted as a brand ambassador for a finance company, cannot be made a party to a consumer dispute merely because he appeared in advertisements.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A A set aside earlier orders of the consumer fora and held that the complaint against the actor was not maintainable in law.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Dumpers, Excavators Not ‘Motor Vehicles’; Gujarat Road Tax Demand Quashed
Background of the Case
The case arose from a consumer complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. Two borrowers alleged that they were induced to shift their gold loan accounts to Manappuram Finance after seeing advertisements promising a lower interest rate.
Mohanlal, who was the brand ambassador of the finance company at the relevant time, was arrayed as the second opposite party. The complainants claimed that the interest rate demanded later was higher than what was projected in advertisements featuring the actor.
The District Commission rejected Mohanlal’s objection on maintainability, holding that the complaint could proceed against him. This view was later echoed by the State Consumer Commission, prompting the actor to approach the High Court through a writ petition.
Read also:- Preventive Detention Misused: Supreme Court Frees Telangana Woman Held in Ganja Cases
Appearing for Mohanlal, his counsel argued that the actor had no direct role in the loan transactions. His association was limited to endorsing advertisements and he neither offered loans nor interacted with the complainants.
It was further contended that under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, liability of an “endorser” is dealt with separately under Section 21, which empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority to act against misleading advertisements. According to the petitioner, this provision does not automatically make an endorser liable for alleged deficiency of service by the company.
Court’s Observations
After examining the statutory scheme, the High Court drew a clear distinction between an “endorsement” and liability for unfair trade practices or service deficiency.
Read also:- Supreme Court curbs private fraud complaints under Companies Act, partially quashes Telangana
“The liabilities contemplated for an endorser under the Act are confined to proceedings under Section 21 alone,” the court observed. It noted that in other provisions dealing with consumer complaints, an endorser can be held liable only if a direct link with the transaction is established.
The judge carefully reviewed the consumer complaint and found that there were only two references to Mohanlal: one stating that he was the brand ambassador, and another noting that the finance company assured an interest rate “as advertised” by him.
“Merely because a person falls within the definition of an endorser, he cannot be mulcted with liability for unfair trade practice or deficiency of service unless a direct connection with the transaction is shown,” the bench said.
The court highlighted that the complainants’ own pleadings showed that assurances regarding interest rates were given by the finance company’s branch, not by the actor personally. There was no material to suggest that Mohanlal persuaded the borrowers to take the loan or was involved in its terms.
Even assuming that the advertisement formed part of the background, the alleged failure-charging higher interest-could only be attributed to the service provider, the court noted.
Read also:- J&K High Court Upholds Acquittal in Larnoo Rape Case, Says Trial Would Have Been an “Empty
Final Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Kerala High Court quashed the orders of the District and State Consumer Commissions insofar as they related to Mohanlal. It held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against the actor.
However, the court clarified that the complainants are free to pursue their claims against the finance company and may also invoke remedies before the appropriate authority under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act if they have grievances regarding misleading advertisements.
Case Title: Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala & Others
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 31700 of 2024
Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil)
Decision Date: 29 October 2025
