Zaidi felt aggrieved by the deliberately misleading promos, as the song was missing in the movie. Feeling cheated and deceived, she filed a consumer complaint before the Maharashtra State Commission against Yash Raj Films and also the Central Board of Film Certification. She sought a direction to the producers to disclose in the promos that this song was not included in the film.
The producers contested the complaint. Even though they admitted that the promotional trailer did contain this song, their defence was that during the press interviews it had been disclosed that it would not be a part of the movie. So, the general public was made aware of the facts. They also argued that Zaidi could not be termed to be their consumer, and so the complaint was not maintainable.
The Forum upheld the objections and dismissed the complaint. Zaidi appealed to the Maharashtra State Commission which set aside the order and directed Yash Raj Films to pay Zaidi Rs 10,000 as compensation along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.
Yash Raj Films challenged this order through a revision petition. The National Commission observed that payment of consideration is necessary for being considered to be a consumer. However, it was not necessary that this payment must be made directly. Even if the consideration flows through an intermediary, a seller or a service provider could be held liable. Since the film producer and distributor get revenue through the screening of the movie, it was held that Zaidi would be a consumer as she had purchased tickets for viewing the movie.
On merits, the National Commission observed that any public declaration through press interviews would be pointless, as a person decides to view a movie on the basis of the promos and trailer. Also, a presumption cannot be drawn that a person who has seen the promo would have also viewed the press interview given by the actor or the producer. The Commission also questioned the logic of having a song in the trailer which was not included in the movie unless the intention was to deceive the viewer.
Accordingly, by its order of February 18, 2020, delivered by Justice V K Jain, the National Commission concluded that Yash Raj Films was guilty of having indulged in unfair trade practice. The order of the Maharashtra State Commission awarding compensation was upheld, and the revision was dismissed.
The writer is a consumer activist
One subscription. Two world-class reads.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)