Panchkula District Commission Holds '24 Seven' Liable For Selling Expired Food Product

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased groceries, including a bag of Kari & Kari (Japanese Premium Snacks), from 24 Seven (“Seller”). The bill amount was Rs. 349/-, and the price of the snack was Rs. 99/-. The manufacturing date on the snack's packaging was 23.04.2021. It was alleged that the Seller sold the snack beyond its expiry date, as the bag was sold on 11.07.2022, while its expiry date was 22.04.2022.

After consuming the expired snack, the Complainant fell ill and was bedridden for three days. He was diagnosed with food poisoning. Being a well-known businessman, the Complainant suffered irreparable monetary loss in his business. He had travelled from Bathinda to Chandigarh on 10.07.2022 for a business meeting with the Barista Coffee Company. However, due to his illness, he could not attend his official meetings scheduled between 12.07.2022 and 13.07.2022.

The Complainant sent a legal notice to the Seller on 13.07.2022, seeking compensation for the mental agony, physical harassment, and financial loss he suffered. However, the Seller did not respond. Consequently, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (“District Commission”). The Seller failed to appear for the proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Seller had sold a grocery item, specifically Kari & Kari (Japanese Premium Snacks), beyond its expiry date. The Complainant had alleged that the Seller erased part of the expiry date to deceive consumers, a claim supported by evidence in the form of a bag of the same product with a clear manufacturing and expiry date.

The District Commission emphasized that sellers have a fundamental duty to verify the expiry dates of edible products before selling them to consumers. Selling expired food items can have severe health consequences, including the risk of food poisoning, as in the Complainant's case. The District Commission condemned the Seller's actions as an unfair trade practice and a breach of consumer trust.

In light of the Seller's failure to respond and the uncontroverted evidence, the District Commission found the Seller liable for both deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The District Commission directed the Seller to refund the Complainant Rs. 99/-, with 9% interest per annum from the date of purchase. Additionally, the Seller was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, Rs. 5,500/- as litigation charges, and Rs. 10,000/- in punitive damages to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF).

The Commission also issued a warning to the Seller against future unfair trade practices and directed wide publicity of the order to raise consumer awareness and deter other sellers.

Case Title: Avneet Singh Dhillon vs 24 Seven

Case No.: Consumer Case No. CC/300/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: Sh. Jaspreet Singh

Advocate for the Respondent: None (ex-parte)

Date of Pronouncement: 19th June 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order