Kerala High Court Absolves Actor Mohanlal In Manappuram Finance False Advertisement Case
K. Salma Jennath
9 Jan 2026 7:19 PM IST
The Kerala High Court has absolved actor Mohanlal from liability in a consumer case alleging unfair trade practice by Manappuram Finance for demanding higher interest than what was advertised by it.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. remarked that as long as the actor was only the brand ambassador of Manappuram and did not, in any manner, persuade to avail their services, liability cannot be fastened against him.
Mohanlal had come before the High Court challenging the orders passed by the District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions rejecting his challenge to maintainability against a consumer complaint.
According to the complainants, they pledged their gold ornaments at Catholic Syrian Bank for an interest at 15% per annum. Later, this loan was taken over by the Manager of Manappuram Finance by promising lower interest rate. They also claimed that they were attracted by the offer because of the advertisements made by Mohanlal.
However, when they approached the Manager of Manappuram to close the loan and release the gold, a higher interest rate than what was advertised was demanded. It was at this juncture that they preferred the consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He thus sought refund of excess interest collected and a compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs.
Before the district commission, the actor filed a written version stating that he did not have any direct relation and cannot be held responsible for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. He also raised the question of maintainability of the complaint against him.
The district commission, however, relied on the definition of 'endorsement' under Section 2(18) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and held the complaint to be maintainable. This was challenged in revision before the State Commission but it also refused to enter into any specific finding as to maintainability. Aggrieved, the actor came before the High Court.
The Court considered the definitions of 'endorsement' and 'unfair trade practice' under the Act and remarked that the term 'endorser' is not specifically mentioned therein, except under Section 21.
As per Section 21, the Central Authority may impose a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on an endorse if there is a false or misleading advertisement. One of the clauses specifically provide that endorser shall not be liable to pay the penalty if he has exercised due diligence to verify the veracity of the claims made in the advertisement regarding the product or service endorsed.
The Court then opined that liability for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice can be imposed on endorser only if there is a direct link between endorser and the persons availing the service.
“Going by the statutory stipulations in Section 21, it can be seen that the liabilities contemplated upon the endorser, is in respect of the proceedings envisaged under Section 21 alone. In any of the other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, there is no reference of “endorser”. Therefore, the conclusion that has to be arrived at is that, as far as the other consequences arising from the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, in relation to deficiency of service or unfair trade practices are concerned, the liability can be imposed upon an endorser, only in a case in which, a direct link has been established between the person who is availing the service and the persons who are impleaded as the opposite parties in the complaint, as service providers or suppliers of equipments,” the Court remarked.
Next, the Court looked into the complaint to see if there was any direct link was made out. It noted that there were only two references of the actor in the complaint, the first one that the actor was an ambassador and the second that Manappuram's manager assured that the interest rate will be as endorsed by Mohanlal in the advertisements. This, the Court felt, did not establish a direct link between the complainants and the actor.
Thus, the Court quashed the orders of the Commissions and held that the complaint is not maintainable against the actor. However, the Court also made it clear that the complainants are free to invoke the remedy under Section 21 of the Act.
Case No: WP(C) No. 31700 of 2024
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
Counsel for the petitioner: B.S. Suresh Kumar, George Sebastian
Counsel for the respondents: K.S. Arundas, Ashley John, Ranjana V., Anusree C.S., Christopher Thomas, Ambily Joshy, Anamika