Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
ACTOR MOHANLAL VISWANATHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the parties and complaint context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the maintainability of the complaint. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. consideration of compliance with consumer protection act. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 4. analysis of the definition of endorsement and its implications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's reasoning on lack of direct responsibility of the petitioner. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
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 4th respondent herein, is the Manager. The said establishment is rendering various financial
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
