A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court examined whether a promotional trailer creates a binding contractual obligation or can constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged deficiency in service because a song featured in the promotional trailer of a movie was not included in the actual film. Lower forums ruled inconsistently, with the State and National Commissions holding that the omission constituted both deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. However, the Supreme Court clarified that a promotional trailer does not constitute an offer or promise, nor does it create enforceable rights. It emphasized the unilateral and creative nature of such advertisements. The Court ruled that there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice in this case, emphasizing the subjective expectations of the complainant lacked legal merit.

Keywords:

Consumer Protection, Promotional Trailer, Contractual Relationship, Deficiency of Service, Unfair Trade Practice.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Yash Raj Films Private Limited v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 4422 of 2024.

iii) Judgment Date:
April 22, 2024.

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum:
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar.

vi) Author:
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

vii) Citation:
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 143; 2024 INSC 328.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), and 2(1)(r).
• Indian Contract Act, 1872: Sections 2(a), 2(b), and 2(h).

ix) Judgments Overruled:
None explicitly overruled.

x) Case Related to Which Law Subjects:
Consumer Law, Contract Law, Advertisement Law, and Artistic Freedom.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case emerged from a consumer dispute involving a teacher, Afreen Fatima Zaidi, who filed a complaint against Yash Raj Films Private Limited. She alleged that the exclusion of a song, extensively promoted in the trailer of the film Fan, from the actual movie amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Lower consumer forums offered conflicting judgments, ultimately leading the Supreme Court to address the broader legal issues related to advertising, consumer expectations, and contractual obligations.

The judgment holds importance in clarifying the distinction between artistic promotion and binding commercial representations.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Promotional Content: The movie Fan featured a song, “Jabra Fan,” prominently in its trailers but excluded it from the final cut.

2. Complaint: The complainant, enticed by the promotional material, purchased tickets for her family to watch the movie. She felt cheated when the song was absent, claiming mental agony and damages amounting to Rs. 60,550.

3. Procedural History:

   • The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint, holding no consumer-service relationship existed.
   • The State Commission reversed this decision, recognizing the absence of the song as unfair trade practice and awarded compensation.
   • The NCDRC upheld the State Commission’s ruling, further emphasizing that viewers are justified in expecting advertised elements unless disclaimers are provided.

4. Appeal to Supreme Court: Yash Raj Films contested the findings, arguing that promotional trailers do not create binding obligations.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Does a promotional trailer constitute an offer or promise under contract law?
2. Can omitting advertised elements in a movie amount to deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
3. Does this omission constitute unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r)?
4. What is the legal relationship between promotional materials and consumer transactions?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Promotional Trailer as Advertisement:
   The appellant argued that trailers are creative and artistic expressions, not binding contractual offers or promises.

2. Absence of Contractual Elements:
   There was no offer or acceptance concerning the song; thus, no enforceable promise existed under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

3. Independent Transaction:
   Purchasing a movie ticket creates a standalone contractual relationship to provide the service of screening a film, unrelated to promotional trailers.

4. Burden of Proof:
   The respondent failed to establish any cogent evidence of false representation or intention to mislead.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Consumer Expectations:
   The respondent argued that promotional trailers establish a consumer expectation, especially when content is heavily emphasized.

2. Implied Promise:
   Including the song in promotional material without a disclaimer creates an implicit promise of its inclusion in the film.

3. Deficiency in Service:
   The absence of the advertised song constituted a fault or inadequacy in the quality and nature of the service.

4. Unfair Trade Practice:
   The respondent alleged that the promotional trailer was intentionally misleading to attract viewers.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Promotional Trailers are Non-Binding:
   The Court ruled that trailers do not constitute contractual offers or promises.

2. Creative Freedom in Art:
   Advertising for films often involves creative discretion. Courts must consider this freedom when evaluating consumer disputes.

3. No Deficiency in Service:
   The transaction was limited to providing the opportunity to watch the movie. The absence of a song did not affect the service’s core purpose.

4. Unfair Trade Practice Not Proven:
   No substantive evidence was provided to show that the trailer misled consumers or violated Section 2(1)(r) of the Act.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Artistic advertisements cannot be rigidly scrutinized under consumer law.
• Standard consumer law tests may not be entirely applicable to creative industries.

c. Guidelines

• Clear Disclaimers: Filmmakers should clarify when promotional content differs from the final product.
• Evidence-Based Allegations: Consumers must provide solid evidence for claims under unfair trade practice.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the balance between artistic freedom and consumer rights. It provides clarity on the limited enforceability of promotional materials while cautioning against frivolous consumer disputes.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (1995) 5 SCC 139.
2. Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. MRTP Commission (1989) 3 SCC 251.
3. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Director General of Investigation (2009) 1 SCC 230.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r).
2. Indian Contract Act, 1872: Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(h).