Kerala HC quashes complaint against Mohanlal over gold loan advertisement

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has set aside a complaint filed against actor Mohanlal, who served as the brand ambassador of a financial institution, over allegations that promises made in its advertisement were not honoured. The complaint had been filed by a resident of Thiruvananthapuram. Mohanlal approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

The complainant argued that a brand ambassador was responsible for ensuring that the promises highlighted in advertisements were fulfilled. Justice Ziyad Rahman dismissed the complaint, observing that no transaction had taken place between the actor and the financial institution under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

The dispute arose from allegations that the financial institution demanded a higher interest rate on a gold loan than what was mentioned in its advertisement. The court clarified that Mohanlal’s role was limited to being a brand ambassador and that he had not persuaded customers to avail themselves of the institution’s services. On that basis, the judge held that liability could not be fixed on him.

Mohanlal had challenged earlier orders passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, both of which had rejected his objections on the maintainability of the consumer complaint.

According to the complainants, they had initially pledged their gold ornaments at a bank at an annual interest rate of 15%. They later alleged that the loan was taken over by the manager of the financial institution after assurances of a lower interest rate. They claimed they were drawn to the offer after seeing advertisements featuring Mohanlal.

However, when the complainants approached the financial institution to close the loan and retrieve their gold ornaments, they were asked to pay an interest rate higher than what was advertised.

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, a fine of up to ₹10 lakh may be imposed for false or misleading advertisements. The court noted that such action requires a direct relationship between the endorser and the service provider.

It observed that the complaint mentioned the actor only twice — once as a brand ambassador and once in reference to assurances given by the institution regarding the interest rate mentioned in advertisements. This, the court held, did not establish a direct link between the complainants and the actor.