Reena Poonacha
A case looks to have set a precedence in the saga of Indian Movies
In a distinctive case, today, Supreme Court made its judgement directing the film production house -Yash Raj Films which had produced Shah Rukh Khan’s “Fan”to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-
SC Judges Say “You Show Something Else in The Trailer Which Isn’t There In The Movie”
Yes, this complaint was made in 2016 by complainant named Afreen Fatima Zaidi who is a teacher by profession. She, in her complaint, had stated of feeling cheated as she went on to watch Shah Rukh Khan’s fan after the song ‘Jabra Fan‘. seemingly disappointed to not find the song in the film which led to the complaint.
Complainant Afreen Fatima Zaidi moved court saying her kids were disappointed that ‘Jabra Fan’ song was not included in the movie ‘Fan’, so they didn’t eat, fell sick & were hospitalized. The consumer has asked for damages from YRF for not showing the song
Maharashtra Consumer Commission, which ruled in her favour in 2017. They directed YRF to pay her a sum of Rs 15,000. The production house challenged the verdict and moved the NCDRC. They, too, ruled in her favour held that, when the song is not actually a part of the movie deceives viewers and amounts to unfair trade practice, under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Ironically Movie ‘Fan’ was a story about a fan who wasn’t happy with his favorite star for his actions which led him on the path of revenge. And something similar happened, a fan wasn’t happy with the production house for promoting the title song ‘Jabra Fan‘ before the release but slashing it completely out from the film
Yash Raj Films (YRF), has been ordered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to compensate a moviegoer, NCDRC presiding member, VK, Jain said, “What’s the logic behind including the song in the promo but excluding it while exhibiting the movie.”
Vishal Dadlani, who composed the song along with Shekhar Ravjianii, said, “The song was never meant to be in the film and had nothing to do with the narrative. It was composed to promote the film. Perhaps, the lesson here is that if one wishes to have a song to promote a film, the filmmaker may have to carry a foolproof disclaimer.”
YRF adds that it is common industry practice to release certain songs for promotional purpose and not include them while exhibiting the movie. Movies are released and offered for viewing in theatres for the experience of watching the “story in its entirety”. It submits, “What scenes / songs,portions that the producer and the director finally choose to retain as part of the film, after editing, and what they finally present to the public, public, is their prerogative. Members of public cannot demand the story to be presented in a specific manner, suitable to their sensibilities.” It also argued that mere non-inclusion of the said song has not caused any loss to the Respondent and that her claims are exaggerated.
YRF, also pleaded the following grounds: that it is not the service provider in this case.
It submits, “Respondent No. 1 availed the ‘services’ of the cinema hall and not that of the Petitioner, and it is business arrangement between the Producer, Distributor and Exhibitor of the movie has no relevance here.
It is submitted that there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1.”
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a special leave petition filed by Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. A bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanium issued notice on the petition, after hearing the counsel for YRF Advocate Naomi Chandra
