Case Note & Summary
The case involved a consumer dispute regarding a promotional trailer for the film 'Fan' produced by the appellant, a film producer. The complainant, a teacher, watched the trailer which featured a song and subsequently decided to watch the movie with her family, expecting the song to be included. Upon discovering that the song was not in the film, she felt deceived and filed a complaint claiming damages for mental agony. The District Consumer Redressal Forum dismissed her complaint, stating there was no consumer-service provider relationship. The State Commission later reversed this decision, finding deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, awarding compensation to the complainant. The appellant appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which upheld the State Commission's findings. The NCDRC stated that the promotional trailer created an implied promise that the song would be included in the film, leading to consumer deception. The court analyzed whether the promotional trailer constituted a contractual obligation and if it amounted to an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It concluded that promotional trailers are unilateral advertisements and do not create contractual obligations. The court emphasized that the complainant's expectation did not equate to a promise, and thus there was no deficiency of service. Furthermore, it found no evidence of unfair trade practice, as the trailer did not contain false representations. The court ultimately set aside the findings of the NCDRC, allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Deficiency of Service - Promotional trailers do not create contractual obligations - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) - The court held that promotional trailers are unilateral and do not constitute offers, thus no deficiency of service arises when the movie does not contain the song shown in the trailer. Held that the complainant's expectation does not equate to a contractual promise (Paras 1-20). B) Consumer Protection - Unfair Trade Practice - No unfair trade practice established - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(r) - The court found that the promotional trailer did not contain false representations or misleading statements, and thus did not constitute an unfair trade practice. Held that the burden of proof for unfair trade practice was not met (Paras 15-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a promotional trailer creates a contractual obligation and if its contents not being in the movie constitutes an unfair trade practice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the findings of the NCDRC regarding deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection
- Unfair Trade Practice
- Deficiency of Service
- Contract Law
- Promotional Trailers
