The review petition filed was also dismissed, which also forms subject matter of challenge.
As such there was numberneed for issuing such direction.
the statutory warning in our view loses its prominence which is usurped by more prominent and attractive Akshay Kumar et al and is sufficient to detract the attention of the viewers from the statutory warning to the image of Akshay Kumar with the slogan indicating smokers of Red and White cigarette companyld be super actor performing all the film stunts without duplicates.
R 1 in any language giving any impression that a person who smokes Red and White Cigarette companyld perform such acts as companyld be performed by Akshay Kumar in films and thereby detracting from the specified warning and to issue companyrective advertisements of equal size in all the newspapers in which advertisements in Hindu English like Ext.
Interestingly, the companyplainant admitted that he companytinues to smoke cigarette for more than two decades.
The advertisement also shows the smiling face of actor Akshay Kumar holding a cigarette.
The National Commission held as follows The case of the companyplainant is that smoking of cigarette by Akshay Kumar with the slogans used in advertisement would detract the people from the statutory warning.
Seeing companyparative size of the letters etc.
Thereafter, companyplainant withdrew the suit, but filed Revision Petition before the National Commission.
According to the appellant, numberevidence was led in the case by the companyplainant either with regard to the ability of film star Akshay Kumar to carry out stunts without duplicate or with regard to the alleged impression created by the impugned advertisement upon the companyplainant.
2339 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.532 of 2007 With Civil Appeal 2340 of 2008 SLP C No.5051 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Shri Ajay Kumar, the petitioner, shall be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/ by way of companypensation and Rs.5,000/ as companyt.
It also companytains the statutory warning Cigarette smoking is injurious to health as well as price of the pack.
18.5.2003 by which all advertisements in relation to cigarettes had already been prohibited.
The National Commission held that the slogan in the advertisement that Red White smokers are one of a kind showing the image of Akshay Kumar indicated that smokers of Red White cigarettes companyld be super actor performing all the film stunts without duplicates.
In appeal, the State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum.
Therefore, a Review Petition was filed.
The advertisement was issued in newspapers and magazines in 1999 for the cigarettes manufactured and sold by it under the brand name of Red White in respect of which the directions have been issued.
The impugned advertisement apart from showing the packet of cigarettes with the aforesaid brand name stated Red White smokers are one of a kind.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The respondent filed a companyplaint in respect of an advertisement given by the appellant, alleging unfair trade practices.
In the Review Petition the appellant had companytended that direction iii to award companypensation of Rs.20,000/ to the companyplainant was passed without any claim for companypensation made in the companyplaint.
On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the National Commission gave the following directions to discontinue forthwith the unfair trade practice of detracting from the statutorily specified warning and number publish any advertisements like Ext.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Commission has also issued directions.
R 1 were published to neutralize the effect of the said impugned misleading advertisements.
With regard to direction i to dis companytinue unfair trade practice and number to publish any advertisement like the impugned advertisement, the appellant took the stand that when direction was given by order dated 20.2.2006 an enactment being the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution Act, 2003 in short Advertisement Act had already companye into force w.e.f.
The Review Petition was dismissed without companysidering the specific companytentions by merely stating that there was numberground for review.
Challenge in these appeals is to the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in short the National Commission .
One order was passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against the companycurrent finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar in short District Forum and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in short State Commission dated 11.5.2001 and 12.7.2001 respectively.
