In a significant legal ruling, the Kerala High Court has granted relief to Malayalam superstar Mohanlal in a consumer case related to allegations of unfair trade practices by Manappuram Finance Limited. The court held that the actor, who served as the company's brand ambassador, cannot be held liable for the alleged charging of higher interest rates than advertised.
The Core of the Legal Dispute
The case originated from a complaint filed by two borrowers before a consumer forum. The complainants alleged that they were induced to transfer their gold loans to Manappuram Finance after being promised a lower interest rate of 12% per annum. This rate was prominently advertised in media campaigns featuring Mohanlal. However, they claimed that when they later sought to close their loans and retrieve their gold ornaments, the finance company demanded a significantly higher rate of interest.
Subsequently, the borrowers filed a formal complaint seeking a refund of the excess interest collected and compensation of Rs. 25 lakh. The complaint was also filed against Mohanlal in his capacity as the brand ambassador. The actor, in his defense before the district commission, stated he had no direct relation to the transactions mentioned and could not be held responsible for any alleged deficiency in service.
High Court's Landmark Observation
Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, presiding over the case, delivered the judgment on January 10, 2026. The court meticulously examined the complaints and found only two references to the actor: first, that he was the brand ambassador, and second, that a company manager assured the interest rate would be 12% as promised by the actor in advertisements.
The court made a crucial distinction, observing that the complainants failed to establish that Mohanlal had personally persuaded them or was directly involved in their financial transactions. "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 bench held.
The judgment further clarified, "There is nothing to indicate that the complainants were persuaded to avail the services, on account of the assurance in the advertisements... wherein, the petitioner acted as the ambassador of the establishment." Based on this reasoning, the High Court quashed the earlier orders of the consumer commissions that had held the complaint maintainable against the actor.
Implications and Legal Remedies
This ruling sets an important precedent regarding the extent of liability for celebrities who endorse brands. The court underscored that liability cannot be imposed solely based on endorsement unless a direct nexus with the disputed transaction is proven.
However, the judgment also provided an alternative legal avenue for aggrieved consumers. The court clarified that the complainants retain the liberty to invoke remedies under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which deals with penalties against false or misleading advertisements, if they have any grievance specifically regarding the nature of the advertisements themselves.
The case highlights the ongoing legal scrutiny of celebrity endorsements in India, especially in the financial sector where consumer decisions can have significant monetary consequences. The Kerala High Court's decision offers clarity, distinguishing between the promotional role of an ambassador and the operational responsibilities of the company.
