JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the 2nd opposite party in C.C. No. 196 of 2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, challenging Exts.P6 and P8 orders, passed by the District Commission as well as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, respectively, where the challenge raised by the petitioner, against the maintainability of the complaint as against the petitioner, was rejected.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner is a film actor and he happened to be the brand ambassador of M/s Manapuram Finance, to which 1st opposite party in the complaint, who is the 4^th respondent herein, is the Manager. The said establishment is rendering various financial services including gold loan to its customers. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein, are the complainants in the aforesaid complaint. According to the said complainants, they initially pledged their gold ornaments at Catholic Syrian Bank for an interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Later the said loan was taken over by the 4th respondent/ 1st opposite party, by promising lower interest rate on 31.03.