Rajasthan man fined in consumer case against Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff. Here is why
The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has dismissed an appeal filed by Gajendra Singh Thakur against J.B. Industries and Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff, imposing a cost of Rs 10,000 on the complainant for filing what it called an unnecessary appeal.
The case gained attention because the product in question had been endorsed by Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff, all of whom were dragged into the complaint process at different stages.
The order was passed by Judicial Member Nirmal Singh Medatwal and Member Justice Devendra Kachhawaha of the Jaipur bench of the Commission.
Thakur had earlier approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Jaipur II), claiming that the cardamom-based mouth freshener marketed by J.B. Industries was misleading in its composition and advertisements. He alleged that the product’s celebrity promotions conveyed a false impression of quality and health benefits.
But the earlier complaint had been withdrawn, and a fresh appeal was filed before the State Commission on similar grounds. Thakur had filed a complaint in a district forum, which was dismissed as not maintainable on August 12.
When the matter came up, Thakur appeared in person, while advocates Dushyant K. Mahant and Shivangshu Naval represented the company.
The respondents strongly objected to Thakur’s bid to again withdraw the appeal, noting that he had created publicity by issuing notices and publishing them in newspapers, thereby implicating not only the company, but also the film stars endorsing it.
“The respondent company, as well as actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff, had to engage counsel and travel for hearings,” the defence pointed out, arguing that the repetitive filings amounted to misuse of consumer-protection forums.
The bench observed that after notices were issued, the respondents appeared and produced a laboratory report from Atharva Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. detailing the product’s ingredients—including cardamom, silver foil, sugar, saffron, and saccharin—and showing no deviation from labelling norms. Copies of product pouches were also submitted to establish full ingredient disclosure.
The Commission noted that Thakur’s own counsel had earlier advised him to approach the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) instead, as the matter concerned alleged misleading advertisements. Nevertheless, he pursued an appeal before the State Commission and sought to withdraw it only after the respondents had appeared and incurred expenses.
Citing this conduct, the bench remarked that “the appellant filed an unnecessary appeal after issuance of notice and appearance of the respondents”, and therefore the withdrawal could not be allowed without levying a fine.
The Commission dismissed the appeal as not pressed, but imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on Thakur, directing that the amount be paid to the respondents. The cost, according to the order, was handed over to the respondents’ counsel in court. The file has been ordered to be closed and consigned to record.
The ruling signals the Commission’s determination to curb frivolous or publicity-oriented consumer litigation, a growing issue since the Consumer Protection Act 2019 expanded jurisdiction to include misleading endorsements by celebrities.
In recent years, consumer authorities have repeatedly warned that endorsers, including film personalities, could be held liable if advertisements misled buyers. However, the present case shows that complainants, too, must act responsibly and not use star-driven publicity to attract attention to weak or repetitive complaints.
Entertainment