Consumer Court Imposes Heavy Penalty on Reliance Store for Expired Food Sale
In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ludhiana has imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 on a Reliance Smart Point store for selling a packet of expired instant poha. The product, valued at just Rs 10, was found to be past its use-by date by nearly two weeks, leading the commission to condemn the retail giant for engaging in unfair trade practices and deficient service.
Details of the Case and Consumer Complaint
The incident occurred on August 23, 2025, when complainant Naveneet Singh purchased a 50-gram packet of Masti Oye Instant Poha from the Atam Park outlet. Upon returning home, he discovered that the expiry date was listed as August 10, 2025, indicating the product was sold well after it should have been removed from shelves. Despite sending a formal legal notice to the retailer, Singh received no response, prompting him to file a consumer complaint.
The commission proceeded with the case ex-parte after representatives from the Reliance group failed to appear in court. In its judgment, the court emphasized that selling expired food poses a serious health risk and violates the statutory right to safety afforded to consumers under Indian law.
Court Ruling and Penalties Imposed
The commission's order included several key directives:
- Refund the Rs 10 purchase price to Naveneet Singh within 30 days.
- Pay a penalty of Rs 10,000 for mental harassment and litigation costs incurred by the complainant.
- Apply an 8% annual interest rate to the refund if payment is delayed beyond the 30-day window.
While the penalty is a fraction of the Rs 2 lakh originally sought by Singh, the ruling underscores the strict liability of retailers under India's Consumer Protection Act and food safety standards. The commission noted in its judgment that the acts and omissions of the retailer not only caused monetary loss but also resulted in mental agony and shock for the complainant.
Legal Framework and Consumer Protection
The commission relied on several key statutes to establish the retailer's liability:
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Section 2 (6) (v)]: Defines a complaint as any allegation regarding goods that are hazardous to life and safety being offered for sale in contravention of safety standards.
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 [Section 3(1)(j)]: Explicitly includes food under the legal definition of goods subject to consumer rights.
- Liability [Section 27 (3)(a)]: Specifically holds the seller liable for any article of food sold after its expiry date.
This case highlights the importance of vigilance in food safety and consumer rights, serving as a reminder to retailers to adhere strictly to regulations to avoid legal repercussions.
