| CITATION | 2024 INSC 328 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 22 April 2024 |
| COURT | Supreme court of India |
| APPELLANT | Yash Raj Films private limited |
| RESPONDENT | Afreen Fatima Zaid |
| BENCH | Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha Justice Aravind Kumar |
INTRODUCTION
The case of Yash Raj films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Afreen fatima zaidi revolved around where a promotional trailer creates any contractual obligations or if it constitutes an unfair trade practice under the consumer protection Act, 1989. The court held that promotional trailers do not form contractual obligations or offers and therefore do not lead to enforceable promises. Additionally, it ruled that the absence of content from promotional trailer in the actual film does not constitute an unfair trade practice. As a result, the appeal by Yash Raj films was allowed , overturning the previous consumer court decision that found in favor of the respondent.
The District Forum dismissed her complaint, stating there was no consumer-service provider relationship. She appealed to the State Commission, which ruled that entertainment services are considered a ‘service’ and that ‘Yash Raj Films’ was indeed a service provider. The State Commission found that Yash Raj films engaged in unfair trade practices by promoting the movie with a song that was not included in the final film, and awarded her Rs. 10,000 for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000 for costs.
FACTS
- The Yash Raj films private Limited produced a film called “Fan” in 2016.
- The promotional trailer of the film introduces a song.
- Agreen fatima zaidi, a school teacher , decided to watch the film with her family based on the promotional trailer, expecting to see the song.
- The song was not included in the actual movie, leading zaidi to file a consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
- The District consumer Redressal forum dismissed the complaint.
- The state commission and National consumer Dispute Redressal Commission(NCDRC) found in favor of zaidi, ruling there was an unfair trade practice and deficiency of services.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the promotional trailers create contractual relationship or obligations?
- Is it an unfair trade practice if the content of the promotional trailers is not shown in the movie?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
- The appellant’s contention is upheld. The complaint by the respondent is dismissed , and there is no liability on the appellant for the absence of the song in the movie.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
- The respondent claimed that the promotional trailer misled her to believe the song would be in the movie.
- She argued that this amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Sought compensation for mental agony and expenses incurred.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court ruled that a promotional trailer does not create any legal obligation or contract between a film producer and a viewer. The case involved Yash Raj Films, where a viewer complained that a song shown in the trailer was not in the movie, alleging it was an unfair trade practice.The Court explained that a trailer is just an advertisement meant to generate interest in the film, not a promise about the movie’s content. It stated that a consumer’s expectation from a trailer does not turn it into a contractual obligation. The trailer doesn’t meet the legal requirements of an offer or proposal necessary for forming a contract. Thus, the viewer’s disappointment over the missing song did not constitute a legal issue.
The decision clarified that promotional trailers are not considered offers that can be legally accepted, so they don’t create enforceable promises or agreements. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and Yash Raj Films’ appeal was upheld.
ANALYSIS
- The court analyzed where a promotional trailer can be considered an offer and promise leading to a contractual obligation.
- Discussed the nature of advertisements as commercial speech under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
- Examined definitions under the consumer protection Act, 1986, including “consumer”, “service”, “deficiency”, and “unfair trade practice”.
- Referenced the legal standard that advertisements generally do not constitute offers but are invitations to offers.
- Cited decision where false statements in advertisements were considered unfair trade practices.
- The court found that a promotional trailer is not an offer or promise but a means to encourage viewers to purchase movie tickets.
- Also, there is no contractual relationship formed based on the promotional trailer.
- The service transaction is separate from the promotional trailer and is limited to viewing the movie upon purchasing a ticket.
- No evidence of false representation or intent to mislead viewers in the promotional trailer.
- Artistic freedom in film presentation means standards for judging representation must account for creative elements.
CONCLUSION
The court held that promotional trailers do not create enforceable promises or contractual obligations. Also the court found no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Set aside the lower Court’s findings and allowed the appeal by Yash Raj Films Private Limited.The revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.
REFERENCE
- https://www-scconline-co
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65249303/
- https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=004202723000&title=yash-raj-films-private-limited-vs-afreen-fatima-zaidi
This Article is written by the Rachna Singh student of Delhi University, faculty of law (Delhi); Intern at legal vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
