Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. has cleared actor Mohanlal of consumer-law liability in a dispute alleging that Manappuram Finance engaged in an unfair trade practice by charging borrowers an interest rate higher than the rate promoted in its advertisements. The Court quashed the orders that allowed the consumer complaint to proceed against the actor and found that the complaint was not maintainable against him. It noted that his role was confined to appearing as the company’s brand ambassador and that the pleadings did not show he had induced or otherwise persuaded the consumers to avail the loan services, making personal liability untenable, while leaving their claims against the lender open.

The writ petition arose from a consumer complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, by two consumers alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service in relation to a gold loan transaction. The complainants had originally pledged gold ornaments with a bank and later transferred the loan to a private finance company, Manappuram Finance on the assurance of a lower rate of interest. It was alleged that the assurance of a 12% interest rate was based on advertisements featuring a film actor Mohanlal who was the brand ambassador of the finance company.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Women Dog Feeders To Lodge FIRs, Move High Courts; Declines Relief In Stray Dogs Matter Over ‘Anti-Feeder Vigilantes’ Harassment Claims

When the complainants later sought to close the loan and retrieve the pledged gold, a higher interest rate was demanded, leading them to allege misleading advertisement, excess collection of interest, and mental agony. The actor was arrayed as the second opposite party solely on the ground that he had endorsed the services of the finance company through advertisements. He contested the maintainability of the complaint against him, asserting that he had no role in the transaction or service delivery. The District Commission rejected the objection, and the State Commission declined to examine maintainability at a preliminary stage, leading to the writ petition before the High Court.

The Court examined the scope of liability of an endorser under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It “carefully gone through the records” and identified that the petitioner was impleaded “mainly on account of the fact that the petitioner happened to be the brand ambassador of the establishment … and he acted in the advertisements.”

The Court analysed the statutory definitions and noted that “even though the expression ‘endorsement’ has been specifically defined in Section 2(18) … the term ‘endorser’ is not specifically mentioned therein.” It recorded that reference to an endorser appears “only in Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.”

On the scope of Section 21, the Court stated that “the liabilities contemplated upon the endorser, is in respect of the proceedings envisaged under Section 21 alone.” It further observed that “in any of the other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, there is no reference of ‘endorser’.”

The Court reasoned that “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.”

Examining the pleadings, the Court recorded that there were “only two references of the petitioner in the complaint”—one identifying him as brand ambassador and another stating that the finance company assured the interest rate “as assured by the 2nd opposite party through his advertisement.” It concluded that “no direct link is established between the petitioner, and the complainants … as far as the transactions referred to … are concerned.”

The Court also observed that “an act could be treated as an unfair trade practice, only when the service provider failed to provide the services as advertised,” and such failure, on the pleadings, “can only be at the instance of the 1st opposite party.”

Also Read: Victim’s Appeal Against Accused’s Acquittal Can Be Summarily Dismissed If Victim Shows No Prima Facie Arguable Case; Kerala High Court

The Court ordered that “this writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts. P6 and P8 holding that the Ext.P1 complaint is not maintainable against the petitioner herein. All the observations made in this writ petition are pertaining to the liability of the petitioner herein, the 2nd opposite party,” and that “none of these observations would cause any prejudice to the complainants, as far as the claims raised by them against the 4th respondent are concerned. If, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have any grievance with respect to the nature of the advertisement, it shall be open to invoke the remedy of approaching the competent authority under Section 21,” and “the observations made herein will not preclude the 2nd and 3rd respondents from invoking such remedies.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. B.S. Suresh Kumar, Advocate; Sri. George Sebastian, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. K.S. Arundas, Advocate; Sri. Ashley John, Advocate; Smt. Ranjana V., Advocate; Smt. Anusree C.S., Advocate; Shri. Christopher Thomas, Advocate; Smt. Ambily Joshy, Advocate; Smt. Anamika, Advocate

Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:85944
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 31700 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.