Kerala High Court grants relief to Actor Mohanlal in Manappuram finance case

What was the case?

The complaint was filed by two borrowers who alleged that they were induced to transfer their gold loans to Manappuram Finance after being promised a lower interest rate of 12% per annum, as advertised in various media campaigns featuring Mohanlal, who was the company’s brand ambassador.

The complainants claimed that when they later sought to close the loan and retrieve their gold ornaments, a higher rate of interest was demanded.

Subsequently a complaint was submitted, seeking the refund of the excess interest collected from the complainants and a compensation of Rs. 25 Lakh.

The actor filed a written version before the district commission stating that he never had any direct relation to the transactions referred to in the complaint and could not be held responsible to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice allegedly committed merely because he was the brand ambassador.

The commission rejected the submissions and held that the complaint was maintainable against the actor.

Subsequently, a revision petition was filed before the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission wherein, the state commission refused to enter into any specific finding as to the maintainability.

What the court said?

On examining the complaints, the court found that there were only two references of the actor in the complaint, first that he was the brand ambassador and the second that the manager of Manappuram finance that the interest rate will be 12% per annum as assured by the actor through advertisement.

The court observed that the complaints could not establish that the actor had persuaded the complainants or was otherwise involved in the transactions.

“There is nothing to indicate that the 2nd and 3rd respondents (complainants) were persuaded to avail the services, on account of the assurance in the advertisements made by the 4th respondent (Manappuram Finance), wherein, the petitioner acted as the ambassador of the establishment,” the court said.

The court, therefore, quashed the orders of the commissions. It clarified that the complainants shall have liberty to invoke remedy under Section 21 (penalties against false or misleading advertisements) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 if they had any grievance with the nature of the advertisement.