Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Kerala High Court: In a writ petition arose from proceedings initiated before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Manappuram Finance consumer case, against a leading film actor, Mohanlal Viswanathan, who was impleaded solely on the ground that he was the brand ambassador of a financial institution, a Single-Judge Bench of Ziyad Rahman A.A., J., absolved Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan from liability in consumer proceedings arising out of alleged false advertisement by Manappuram Finance and held that mere endorsement or appearance in advertisement does not create liability for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in absence of direct transactional nexus with consumer.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner (opposite party 2), a well-known film actor, was the brand ambassador of Manappuram Finance, a financial institution engaged in pawn broking and gold loan services. The complainants (respondents 2 and 3) pledged their gold ornaments with Catholic Syrian Bank at an interest rate of 15% per annum. Subsequently, on 31-03-2018 and 13-04-2018, the loan was taken over by Manappuram Finance on the assurance of a lower interest rate.
According to the complainants, they were “attracted by the offer made by the opposite parties” and decided to accept the loan on the assurance that the interest rate would be 12% per annum “as assured by the 2nd opposite party through his advertisement in various media.”
Later, when the complainants approached Manappuram Finance for closure of the loan and release of gold ornaments, a higher interest rate than what was advertised was demanded. Aggrieved thereby, they filed Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Thiruvananthapuram, seeking refund of excess interest and compensation of ₹25 lakhs for loss, mental agony and injury.
The petitioner was arrayed as the 2nd opposite party solely on the ground that he was the brand ambassador and had appeared in advertisements of Manappuram Finance.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a written version contending that he had no direct connection with the transaction and could not be held responsible merely for being a brand ambassador. An application was filed raising the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue.
The DCDRC rejected the objection and held that the complaint was maintainable against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a revision before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Moot Point
Whether a brand ambassador/endorser can be made liable in consumer proceedings for unfair trade practice or deficiency of service in the absence of any direct link with the transaction between the service provider and the consumer.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that they never had any direct relation to the transaction and merely being a brand ambassador does not make him liable for alleged deficiency of service. It was contended that under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the liability of an endorser is confined to Section 21 dealing with false or misleading advertisements and “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.”
However, the complainants relied upon the definition of “endorsement” under Section 2(18) and “unfair trade practice” under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and contended that the petitioner, being an endorser, was answerable for the unfair trade practice.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noticed that the “even though the expression ‘endorsement’ has been specifically defined in Section 2(18), the term ‘endorser’ is not specifically mentioned therein. The reference of endorser is made only in Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.” The Court further noted that the liabilities contemplated upon the endorser is in respect of the proceedings envisaged under Section 21 alone.
On examining the complaint, the Court noted that there were only two references to the petitioner that he is the ambassador of Manappuram Finance and the opposite party 1 assured interest rate “as assured by the 2nd opposite party through his advertisement in various media.”
The Court categorically held that no direct link is established between the petitioner, and the complainants as far as the transactions are concerned. The Court further held 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.” The Court asserted that even assuming the petitioner was part of the advertisement, “that by itself cannot be a reason to attribute responsibility upon the petitioner.”
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Exts. P6 and P8 and held that “Ext. P1 complaint is not maintainable against the petitioner herein.” However, the Court clarified that the complainants are at liberty to invoke remedies under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act before the competent authority if they have any grievance regarding misleading advertisements.
[Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 15553, Decided on 29-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Sri. B.S. Suresh Kumar and Shri. George Sebastian, Counsel for the Petitioner
Sri. K.S.Arundas, Sri. Ashley John, Smt. Ranjana V., Smt. Anusree C.S., Shri. Christopher Thomas, Smt. Ambily Joshy and Smt. Anamika, Counsel for the Respondent 2 and 3
Buy Constitution of India HERE
