The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order directing Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd to pay Rs 10,000 along with the cost of litigation to a consumer aggrieved by the boycott of the song. . Bollywood Movies.
A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam issued notice to the Central Board of Film Certification and the complainant, a teacher by profession.
What is the matter about?
– Back in 2016, Aafreen Fatima Zaidi decided to watch Shah Rukh Khan starrer alongside her family members Maneesh Sharma’s 2016 film Fan.
– He based his decision on the film’s promo, which features the song ‘Jabra Fan’ (Music: Vishal-Shekhar; Lyrics: Varun Grover; Singer: Nakash Aziz).
However, when he and his family saw the film, the song was missing from the film.
Feeling cheated and cheated, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum through consumer complaint seeking compensation.
The complaint also included a direction to the petitioners to circulate the promo and the song with a warning that the said song was not included in the film.
How did the consumer body react to his complaint?
– The complaint was rejected by the district forum
After this Zaidi contacted the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra
– The state commission upheld her complaint, and asked YRF to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation.
YRF challenged this order in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
On February 18, 2020, the NCDRC upheld the order of the State Commission.
– The national consumer body agreed that Zaidi had reason to feel “cheated”.
Furthermore, it termed YRF’s move to omit promo songs from the film as “unfair trade practice”.
What is the latest development?
YRF appealed in Supreme Court against the order of NCDRC.
The production house argued that it was “common practice” by the Indian film industry to use songs for promotion that may not be featured in the film.
It sought a stay on this as the present outcome of the case would have “far-reaching consequences” in the film industry.
The SC said that though it may be a “common practice”, it does not mean that it should be continued.
– However, it also stayed the NDCRC’s order, issuing a notice to Zaidi asking him to issue a “plausible explanation”.
His argument with the previous order was whether Zaidi can be treated as a consumer in the first place.
– In the appeal filed in NCDRC, YRF had argued that the woman cannot be treated as a consumer as the price she paid for the movie ticket is a deal between her and the cinema hall.
However, since the price is shared between the manufacturer, the exhibitor and the distributor, the idea flows to the manufacturer, even if through an intermediary, so it can be considered a service provider, as stated by NCDRC Is.
(with inputs from PTI)
read all breaking news, breaking news And coronavirus news Here
.