YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED  [ APPELLANT(S)]  Vs. AFREEN FATIMA ZAIDI & ANR. [RESPONDENT(S)]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4422/2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 14475/2021)

(2JB, PS NARASIMHA and ARAVIND KUMAR, delivered by PS NARASIMHA, J.)

Facts: The appellant is a known film producer. It produced a film called ‘Fan’ in the year 2016. Before the release of the film, the appellant circulated a promotional trailer, both on television and online, which contained a song in the form of a video. The respondent no. 1 (‘complainant’), a teacher in a school in Aurangabad, states that having watched the promotional trailer of the film, she decided to go to watch the movie on the silver screen with her family. However, she found that the movie did not contain the song, even though the song was widely circulated for promoting and publicising the movie. She filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum wherein she has stated that she decided to watch the movie after watching the song in the promotional trailer, with the expectation of watching the song in the theatre. However, to her disappointment, she found that the song was not played in the movie. She alleges that due to this, she felt cheated and deceived by the appellants and has undergone mental agony. In view of the above, she claimed Rs. 60,550 as damages.

Issue: Whether there is any ‘deficiency’ in the provision of the entertainment service that the consumer has availed by paying the consideration through the purchase of a ticket?

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “The ingredients of ‘unfair trade practice’ under Section 2(1)(r)(1) are not made out in this case. The promotional trailer does not fall under any of the instances of “unfair method or unfair and deceptive practice” contained in clause (1) of Section 2(1)(r) that pertains to unfair trade practice in the promotion of goods and services. Nor does it make any false statement or intend to mislead the viewers. Furthermore, the burden is on the complainant to produce cogent evidence that proves unfair trade practice but nothing has been brought on record in the present case to show the same. Therefore, no case for unfair trade practice is made out in the present case. There is another important distinction that we must bear in mind, i.e., the judicial precedents on this point do not relate to transactions of service relating to art. Services involving art necessarily involve the freedom and discretion of the service provider in their presentation. This is necessary and compelling by the very nature of such services. The variations are substantial, and rightly so. Therefore, the standard by which a court of law judges the representation, followed by the service, must be different and must account for the creative element involved in such transactions.”