- The Kangra Consumer Commission ruled against Reliance Smart Point for selling expired noodles.
- The retailer must refund product cost and pay Rs 20,000 as compensation and litigation fees.
- Selling expired food violates the Consumer Protection Act and is deemed negligence by retailers.
Kangra District Consumer Commission in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Delivers Major Verdict Against Reliance Smart Point for Selling Expired Instant Noodles; Says Removing Expired Food Items from Store Shelves Is Entirely the Retailer's Responsibility; Orders Company to Refund Product Cost and Pay Rs 20,000 as Compensation and Litigation Costs
The Consumer Commission in Dharamshala, Kangra district, Himachal Pradesh, comprising President Himanshu Mishra and Members Aarti Sood and Narayan Thakur, was hearing a complaint filed by Jugal Kishore against Reliance Retail Limited. The complaint concerned an expired packet of 'Spicy Korean Instant Noodles' purchased from a Reliance Smart Point outlet in Bhawarna, Kangra district.
On 26 February 2026, the complainant filed a complaint stating that he had purchased a packet of Korean instant noodles from the Reliance Retail store (Reliance Smart Point) located in Bhawarna, Kangra district, and paid the full retail price as per the bill.
The complainant stated that the food product was openly displayed for sale on the store's retail shelves. After returning home, his minor daughter consumed a small portion of the instant noodles. Soon afterwards, she began vomiting and felt severely unwell. Suspecting that there was something wrong with the food, the complainant carefully examined the packaging and was shocked to discover that the product had already crossed its expiry date before the date of purchase.
The complainant argued that displaying and selling expired food products amounted to gross negligence, a serious deficiency in service, and an unfair trade practice, which endangered the health, safety, and life of his child and family. Accordingly, he sought a refund of the product price, compensation, and reimbursement of litigation expenses.
On the other hand, counsel for the retailer opposed the complaint by raising a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability. It was argued that the complainant had failed to discharge the burden of proving his case. No medical evidence or laboratory analysis report had been produced to establish a direct link between the consumption of the noodles and the child's illness.
The retailer further submitted that the product was a sealed, branded, and pre-packaged food item compliant with Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regulations, with the expiry date clearly printed on the packaging. Therefore, it was the consumer's responsibility to inspect the product before purchasing it.
It was also argued that the manufacturer of the branded noodles was a necessary party to the proceedings and that the complaint was defective due to the non-joinder of a necessary party. Additionally, the retailer stated that clear notices had been displayed in the store requesting consumers to read product information and check expiry dates before billing.
The complainant filed a rejoinder denying the contents of the retailer's written reply and reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. The parties were directed to lead evidence in support of their respective claims and subsequently produced their evidence.
In its order, the Consumer Commission stated that it had heard the arguments of the counsel for both sides and carefully examined the record.
There was no dispute that the complainant had purchased a packet of 'Spicy Korean Instant Noodles' from the retailer's outlet on 26 February 2026 through Bill/Invoice No. 51, PS No. R102, after paying the full price. The core piece of evidence in the case was Annexure C-2, the original noodle wrapper, which clearly displayed the expiry date as 28 November 2025. This established that the retailer had sold a food item that had expired three months before the date of sale.
The Commission held that the retailer's defence based on the doctrine of caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") was wholly untenable under modern Indian law. The contemporary legal framework operates on the principle of caveat venditor ("let the seller beware"), particularly in matters concerning food products and public health.
It observed that it is the retailer's complete and mandatory responsibility to ensure that no expired food products remain on store shelves or are sold to consumers. A customer cannot reasonably be expected to turn over every package or inspect dates hidden beneath products while purchasing routine household items.
The Commission further held that selling an expired food product amounted to a direct violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Under Section 2(11) of the Act, "deficiency" includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, inadequacy, negligence, or omission in the quality, nature, or manner of performance of a service resulting in loss or injury to a consumer.
Moreover, displaying and selling expired stock to unsuspecting consumers constituted an "unfair trade practice" under Section 2(47) of the Act because it misleads the public regarding the standard, quality, and safety of food products.
Also Read: Food Authority Sends Notice To Heritage Paneer Over Misleading 'Fresh', 'Healthy' Claims
The Commission rejected the retailer's argument that the manufacturer ought to have been impleaded as a necessary party. It observed that there was no manufacturing defect in the product and that the product had not deteriorated before its expiry date. The manufacturer had complied with FSSAI requirements by clearly mentioning the correct shelf life on the packaging.
The lapse occurred entirely at the retail level because the retailer failed to remove expired stock from sale. The Commission described this as a clear instance of negligence by the retailer, making it directly and solely liable. It also held that prominently displaying notices advising consumers to check expiry dates could not absolve a retailer of its statutory obligations under the Consumer Protection Act.
Addressing the retailer's objection regarding the absence of medical evidence or a laboratory report, the Commission noted that consumer proceedings are summary in nature and not strict criminal trials. The complainant had clearly stated through his affidavit (Ext. CW-1) that his minor daughter began vomiting immediately after consuming part of the noodles.
The Commission observed that, in ordinary human conduct, a father would not falsely claim that his minor child fell ill merely to obtain a small amount of compensation. The very fact that an expired food item had been sold under a valid invoice constituted a clear violation. The distress suffered by the family thereafter did not require further scientific proof, as the sequence of events spoke for itself.
The Commission further remarked that the sale of expired food products poses a serious threat to public health and safety and directly violates the consumer's "right to safety" guaranteed under Section 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Accordingly, the complaint was allowed. The retailer was directed to refund the full purchase price of the product to the complainant. In addition, compensation of Rs 15,000 was awarded for the mental agony, anxiety, and harassment suffered by the family. The retailer was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
The entire amount is to be paid within 30 days from the date of the order.
Ordered accordingly.
Any pending applications stand disposed of in these terms.
