‘Saras Chilli Powder’, Weight Lesser Than Indicated On Packet, Kerala Consumer Commission Dismisses Appeal By Company

Brief Facts:

The appellant, G.M. Anna Aluminium (hereafter referred to as the first opposite party) filed this appeal against the order dated 08.02.2017 issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (District Commission). The District Commission's order directed the first opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs for engaging in an unfair trade practice related to the sale of packed chili powder with a weight less than indicated on the packet.

Sunilkumar K.D. (“Complainant”), had purchased 250 grams of "Saras" Chili powder for Rs. 52/- manufactured by G.M. Anna Aluminium (“manufacturer”) from Panakkal Store owned by Mr P.S. Vinod (“seller”). The packet displayed the weight as 250 grams, but upon weighing, it was found that the actual weight was less. The complainant alleged that this act was a calculated deception of consumers. Resultantly, the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (“District Commission”) wherein the manufacturer was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs for engaging in unfair trade practice related to the sale of packed chili powder with a weight less than indicated on the packet.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the manufacturer filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (“State Commission”). The manufacturer argued that the packing process was mechanized and that any weight discrepancy could have arisen due to unforeseen technical problems with the machines, which they claim was unintentional. They emphasized this was an isolated incident within their 40-year history and offered a refund to the complainant. They contested the claim for compensation, asserting no deficiency of service. On the other hand, the seller admitted to selling the chili powder packet to the complainant as received. He denied engaging in any unfair trade practice and contended that the packet was sold in the same manner it was purchased from the manufacturer.

Observation by the Commission:

Upon review, the State Commission established that the complainant indeed purchased the chili powder packet and that there was a significant weight deficit. This weight disparity was confirmed through verification by the Legal Metrology Department.

The State Commission further held that the manufacturer’s act of selling chili powder packets with substantial weight deficits amounted to an unfair trade practice, deceiving consumers. The manufacturer’s claim of technical issues was not deemed sufficient justification. The State Commission concluded that the compensation awarded by the District Commission was appropriate considering the disappointment, financial loss, and inconvenience caused to the customer.

In light of this, the Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Commission's order. The appellant (the manufacturer) was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the complainant (first respondent).

Case: G.M. Anna Aluminium vs Sunil Kumar

Case No.: A/162/2017

Advocate for the Appellant: Advs. Nemom V. Sanjeev & Narayan R.

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. R.T. Anoop

Click Here To Read/Download Order