Moksh Agarbatti Co. Vs Ganesh — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Moksh Agarbatti Co. Vs Ganesh — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with modification of the trial court decree: compensation reduced from Rs.75,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- with 6% interest from 02.04.2018 till payment; the Rs.18,75,000/- deposited on 04.06.2018 pursuant to the interim order dated 04.05.2018 to be released to the plaintiff/appellant with accrued interest (if any) on proper identification, and the balance to be paid within six weeks along with interest; Registry directed to release the deposited amount; modified decree to be drawn.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proves that on 18.08.2007 his picture was illegally used/morphed in the advertisement on banners and posters holding packs of incense sticks for wrongful financial gain, causing loss or damage to him (trial court Issue No.1). +2 more

Court's answer

Since the defendants used the plaintiff's image/photographs in their advertisement without any authorization or permission and the advertisement was for the defendants' financial gain, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation; the only question is the amount.

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff failed to lead sufficient and cogent evidence to substantiate damages of Rs.75,00,000/-; remuneration for acting in a movie cannot be equated with remuneration for an advertisement, since an advertisement does not require the same time, efforts and devotion; the best evidence was his payment of Rs.35,00,000/- for a whole year as brand ambassador of Reliance products; the trial court's award of Rs.75,00,000/- is therefore excessive.

Key takeaways

Taking into account the plaintiff's own evidence and the respondents' counsel leaving the quantum to the court's discretion, compensation is fixed at Rs.40,00,000/-, payable with 6% interest from the date of the trial court's judgment and decree (02.04.2018) until payment; the balance after the sum already deposited is to be paid within six weeks along with interest.ratio¶¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC against decree awarding Rs.75,00,000/- damages for unauthorised morphing of the plaintiff's photograph in banner/poster advertisements of the defendants' incense sticks: use of the image without authorisation, for the defendants' financial gain, was undisputed and entitled the plaintiff to compensation (trial court Issue No.1 upheld in effect). On quantum, the Division Bench (per D K Singh, J.) held that the plaintiff cannot draw an equivalence between his film remuneration (stated at Rs.1 crore) and advertisement remuneration, an advertisement requiring less time, effort and devotion; the best evidence was his engagement as Reliance brand ambassador at more than Rs.35,00,000/- per annum. The trial court's award of Rs.75,00,000/- was held excessive and unsupported by sufficient and cogent evidence; compensation fixed at Rs.40,00,000/- with 6% interest from 02.04.2018 (date of trial court judgment and decree) till payment. The Rs.18,75,000/- deposited on 04.06.2018 under interim order dated 04.05.2018 was directed to be released to the plaintiff with accrued interest; balance payable within six weeks with interest. Appeal disposed of with modified decree.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:914-DB RFA No. 891 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 891 OF 2018 (RES)

BETWEEN:

MOKSH AGARBATTI CO. NO.39, 3RD MAIN ROAD, J.C. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, YELACHINAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560062.

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MOKSH AGARBATTI CO., NO.39, 3RD MAIN ROAD, J.C. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, YELACHINAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560062.

(BY SRI. S G BHAGAVAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

…APPELLANTS

GANESH S/O. KISHEN B.B., 39 YEARS, NO.100, ADDIKEMARANAHALLI, MAKALI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH - 562123.

S. NARAYAN PROPRETOR: CHALUVAMBIKA,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:914-DB RFA No. 891 of 2018

HC-KAR

PICTURES, NO.17, KEERTHI, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560079.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT IN RESPECT OF R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 08/07/2024)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE 02.04.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.218/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES AS AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.3/RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN AND DECREEING THE SUIT AS AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.1 AND DEFENDANT NO.2/APPELLANTS HEREIN.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.218/2008 filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:914-DB RFA No. 891 of 2018

HC-KAR

The plaintiff filed a suit claiming a sum of

Rs.75,00,000/- being compensation for illegal and unauthorized morphing of his photo/image in the advertisement put in at banners and posters holding two packs of incense sticks manufactured by the respondents.

When the plaintiff came to know about his photographs/image being morphed in advertising the incense sticks manufactured by the respondents/defendants, he issued legal notice to the respondents demanding compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- for illegally morphing his image in the advertisement put on banners and posters by the defendants. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff for the compensation. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff proves that on 18.08.2007, his picture was used in morphing illegally in the advertisement, banners and posters holding to packs of incense sticks to make wrongful financial gain and it is caused loss or damage to the plaintiff as alleged?

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:914-DB RFA No. 891 of 2018

HC-KAR

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for Rs.75,00,000/- by way of damages or compensation as sought for?

The trial Court, having considered the evidence and

pleadings, held that the photographs/image of the plaintiff was illegally used in advertisement put on banners and posters holding two packs of incense sticks by the defendants for wrongful financial gain. In respect of Issue No.2, the trial Court has held that the plaintiff would be entitled for Rs.75,00,000/as compensation for unauthorizedly/illegally using the plaintiff's image in the advertisement of the incense sticks manufactured by the defendants. Thus, decree in aforesaid terms was drawn.

The issue involved in the present appeal is that whether the amount of compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- would be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led by the parties.

There is no dispute to the fact that the defendants have used the plaintiff's image/photographs in the advertisement without any authorization or permission by him. The said advertisement was for financial gain by the

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:914-DB RFA No. 891 of 2018

HC-KAR

defendants/respondents. Therefore, we are of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation. But what amount of compensation is the question which needs to be decided.

The plaintiff has issued legal notice in Exhibit-P3 demanding damages of Rs.75,00,000/for using his image/photographs in the advertisement put in at banners and posters by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. To support the claim for Rs.75,00,000/- the plaintiff has led documentary evidence. The plaintiff who got himself examined as PW1 has stated that the plaintiff's fee for doing a film at the relevant time when the advertisement was put was Rs.1 crore. He has also stated that as a brand ambassador of Reliance Products, the plaintiff was paid remuneration of more than Rs.35,00,000/- for a year.

We, however, do not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the demand of Rs.75,00,000/- as damages for using his photographs/image in the advertisement by the respondents/defendants. The appellant/plaintiff cannot draw the equivalence between the remuneration paid to him for doing movie and remuneration for an advertisement. The advertisement does not require the same kind of time, efforts

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:914-DB RFA No. 891 of 2018

HC-KAR

and devotion as spent in doing a movie. The best evidence was led was in respect of him being a brand ambassador of Reliance products for which for a whole year he was paid remuneration of Rs.35,00,000/-. Hence, we are of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court appears to be excessive and not supported by sufficient and cogent evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff. It was for the appellant/plaintiff to prove the damages by leading cogent and credible evidence in this regard. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the appellant/plaintiff must be reasonable, through proper assessment.

Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has left it to the discretion of this Court to fix appropriate compensation, taking into account the plaintiff's own evidence that he had received Rs.35,00,000/- for being the brand ambassador of Reliance product for a whole year at the relevant time.

Considering the aforesaid fact and the submission advanced, we fix the compensation at Rs.40,00,000/-. As the respondents/defendants have not paid any amount to the

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:914-DB RFA No. 891 of 2018

HC-KAR

appellant/plaintiff, we direct the payment of Rs.40,00,000/along with 6% interest from the date of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court i.e., 02.04.2018 till payment is made.

In compliance of the interim order dated 04.05.2018 the respondents/defendants have already deposited Rs.18,75,000/- on 04.06.2018. The balance amount shall be paid within six weeks along with interest. We direct the Registry to release the amount of Rs.18,75,000/- along with accrued interest if any in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on proper identification.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Let modified decree be drawn in terms of the aforesaid.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

RKA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18