“Supreme Court Crushes Compensation Demand Over ‘Jabra Fan’ Song Exclusion by Yash Raj Films”

Case Title – Yash Raj Films Private Limited Vs. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr.

Case Number – Civil Appeal No. 4422/2024

Dated on – 18^th February, 2020

Quorum – Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

FACTS OF THE CASE

In The Case of Yash Raj Films Private Limited Vs. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr., a school teacher by profession, Afreen Fatima Zaidi, along with her children went to watch a Bollywood Movie titled “FAN” featuring the renowned actor “Shah Rukh Khan” after being tempted to the promotional video of the movie showcasing the song “Jabra Fan”. However, after watching the whole movie in the theatre, she realised that the song was not included in the movie which led to her feeling of deception and disappointment. Augmenting to her grievances, she also stated that her children abstained from eating that night because they had to go to the theatre to watch the movie, especially because of the song, which direly led to the spike in the acidity level of her children, resulting in the necessitation of hospitalisation. While seeking redressal for her grievances, initially Afreen filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Forum seeking for compensation and a direction from the court to include the said song in the movie while displaying it in the theatres henceforth. However, the petition filed by her was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Consumer Forum, Afreen escalated the matter and filed a petition before the State Consumer Forum under the requisite sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The State Consumer Forum ruled in favour of Zaidi and ordered the Yash Raj Films Private Limited to pay her a compensation of Rupees 10,000 as well as the charges for litigation of Rupees 5000 additionally. Aggrieved by the decision of the State Consumer Forum, the Yash Raj Films Private Limited instituted an appeal against the decision of the State Consumer Forum before the National Consumer Forum in February,2020.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

1. The appellants, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the distributor and the producer of the movie “FAN” cannot be held liable for the discontent experienced by the complainant due to the absence of the song “Jabra Fan” in the movie. The decision to whether include a particular song in the movie or exclude the same solely depends upon the creativity and artistic choice made by the filmmakers and is beyond the control of the production company.
2. The appellants, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the complaint made by Zaidi does not fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 as it does not relate to the deficiency in goods and services provided by the Yash raj Films Private Limited and that the discontentment faced by her is her personal preferences and does not concern the Yash raj Films Private Limited.
3. The appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the promotional video along with the song “Jabra Fan” was solely for the purpose of generation of excitement and interest in the film but did not comprise a contractual obligation to include the song in its extensiveness in the final movie released on theatres.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented that as the customer who is paying for watching the movie in the theatres, they have a licit expectation based on the promotional video that the song “Jabra Fan” would be a part of the movie and that the song not being included in the movie amounts to a breach of consumer rights and constitutes unfair trade practices.
2. The respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented that they suffered emotional anguish and inconvenience resulting in the disappointment caused by the exclusion of the song in the movie and that the children experienced health issues as well as hospitalisation due to not eating for long period for the purpose of watching the movie.
3. The respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the appellants bear the responsibility for the content of the movie as well as the display of the exact videos in the theatre that were initially displayed in the promotional video and that the company had a due obligation to ensure that the movie displayed on the expectations crafted by its advertising campaigns including the inclusion of the advertised song “Jabra Fan.”

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 prescribes the definition of the term “complainant”
2. Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 prescribes the definition of the term “consumer”
3. Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 prescribes the definition of the term “goods”
4. Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 prescribes the definition of the term “service”
5. Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 prescribes the “Jurisdiction of the District Commission”
6. Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 deals with the term “appeals”
7. Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 concerns the “Cognizance of the Offences”
8. Section 2A of the Indian Contracts Act,1872 is related to the “Communication, acceptance and revocation of Proposals”
9. Section 73 of the Indian Contracts Act,1872 concerns the “Compensation for loss or damage caused by the breach of Contract”
10. Section 18 of the Indian Contracts Act,1872 deals with the “Effect of refusal of party to perform promise wholly”

ISSUES

1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether a person filing a complaint can be considered a consumer within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019?
2. Another issue in the present case revolves around whether the removal of the song “Jabra Fan” from the movie “Fan” by the appellant being complained against is within the ambit of unfair trade practices under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Yash Raj Films Private Limited Vs. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr., the court observed that since Afreen paid for the expense of the movie ticket, and that the revenue generated by the sale of the tickets was distributed amongst the distributor, producer, and exhibitor after the deduction of the taxes, the complainant is to be recognized as a consumer within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act,2019. The court believed that a promotional trailer is unilateral and is only meant to encourage the viewers to purchase the tickets which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer is not an offer nor can create a contractual relationship and since it is not an offer, there is no possibility of becoming a promise. The service is only to enable the complainant to watch the movie in the theatre upon paying the requisite consideration in the form of purchase of the movie ticket. This transaction is not connected to the promotional trailer and hence cannot be considered a deficiency in the service.

The court believed that the ingredient of the term “Unfair Trade Practices” under the Section 2(1)(r)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 are not made out in the present case. The promotional Trailer does not fall under any of the instances of the “Unfair Trade Practices” in the promotion of the goods and services nor does it make any false claims to mislead the viewers. Further, the burden is on the complainant to produce the convincing evidence that proves the unfair trade practices but nothing of such has been provided on record in the present case to show the same. Therefore, no case of the unfair trade practice is made out in the present case. The court firmly believed that the services involving the art and creativity involves freedom and discretion of the presentation, nuances, and variations of such art. Hence, the court taking into consideration the reasonings and analysis has set aside the findings of the impugned order that there is a deficiency of the services and unfair trade practices. The court allowed the appeal in the present case and stated that any pending applications regarding the said matter shall be disposed off.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment