The Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside consumer forum orders that had kept Malayalam actor Mohanlal in the dock over an alleged misleading gold loan advertisement. The court ruled that merely appearing as a brand ambassador does not make a celebrity responsible for a lender’s service failures unless a direct link to the transaction is shown.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. delivered the verdict while allowing a writ petition filed by the actor, bringing relief to him in a long-running consumer dispute.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. Two borrowers alleged that they were induced to shift their gold loans to Manappuram Finance after seeing advertisements promising a lower interest rate.
Read also:- Stray Dogs Case: Supreme Court Seeks Balance Between Public Safety and Animal Welfare, Hearing Continues
According to the complainants, the ads - in which Mohanlal appeared as the brand ambassador - suggested an annual interest of 12%. However, when they later attempted to close their accounts and retrieve their pledged gold, they claimed that a higher rate was demanded. They sought a refund of the excess interest and ₹25 lakh as compensation for loss and mental agony.
Mohanlal was arrayed as the second opposite party solely because of his endorsement role. He challenged the maintainability of the complaint against him, arguing that he had no role in the loan transactions or interest calculations.
What the Actor Argued
Counsel for Mohanlal told the court that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 treats endorsers separately and limits their liability to proceedings under Section 21, which deals with false or misleading advertisements.
Read also:- Thiruparankundram Deepam Case: Madras HC Warns Collector, Police of Contempt for Defying Court Orders
The actor’s side stressed that there was no allegation that he personally interacted with the complainants or persuaded them to take the loan.
“He was only an endorser, not a service provider,” the argument went, adding that consumer disputes over deficient service must be directed at the lender, not its celebrity face.
Stand of the Complainants
The borrowers opposed the plea, pointing to the wide definition of “unfair trade practice” under the law. They argued that advertisements are part of how services are marketed and that endorsers cannot wash their hands of responsibility when such promotions influence consumers.
They also relied on government guidelines on misleading advertisements, which define an endorser as someone whose image or opinion is used to promote a product or service.
Read also:- Supreme Court Steps In: Anticipatory Bail Granted to Overseas Tech Professional in Pune Criminal Case
Court’s Observations
After examining the statute in detail, the High Court drew a clear line between endorsement and liability for service deficiencies. The bench noted that while “endorsement” is defined in the Act, the word “endorser” appears only in Section 21, which empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority to act against misleading ads.
“The liabilities contemplated for an endorser are confined to proceedings under Section 21,” the court observed. It added that for claims of unfair trade practice or deficient service, a direct connection between the consumer and the alleged wrongdoer must be shown.
Going through the complaint, the judge found only two references to Mohanlal - both limited to his role as brand ambassador. There was no assertion that he personally assured the complainants or took part in the loan process.
Read also:- CBFC Cannot Reopen Cleared Films: Madras High Court Orders UA 16+ Certificate for ‘Jana Nayagan’
“Merely because a person falls within the definition of ‘endorser’, he cannot be saddled with liability for unfair trade practice or deficiency of service, unless a direct link is established,” the bench said.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Kerala High Court quashed the orders of the District Commission and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that had refused to drop proceedings against the actor. The court held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable against Mohanlal.
At the same time, the judge clarified that the complainants are free to pursue their claims against the finance company and may also approach the appropriate authority under Section 21 if they have grievances about the advertisements themselves.
Case Title: Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 31700 of 2024
