The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, comprising President Mr. Hemanshu Mishra and Members Ms. Arti Sood and Sh. Narayan Thakur, has held Reliance Retail Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling an expired packet of instant noodles to a consumer. The Commission observed that a retailer has a statutory and non-delegable duty to ensure that no expired food product is displayed or sold to consumers, and that the sale of such products endangers public health and violates consumers' right to safety.

Brief Facts

The complainant, Jugal Kishore, purchased a packet of Spicy Korean instant noodles from a Reliance Smart Point retail outlet operated by Reliance Retail Limited on 26 February 2026. After returning home, his minor daughter consumed a small portion of the noodles and shortly thereafter began vomiting and feeling unwell. Suspecting the food product, the complainant examined the packaging and discovered that the noodles had expired on 28 November 2025, nearly three months before the date of purchase.

Alleging that the retailer had negligently displayed and sold an expired food product, thereby endangering the health and safety of consumers, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Dharamshala. He contended that the sale of an expired food item amounted to deficiency in service under Section 2(11)and an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, besides violating a consumer's Right to Safety under Section 6(1) of the Act. He sought refund of the purchase price, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

Reliance Retail Limited contended that the complainant had failed to produce any medical or laboratory evidence linking the child's illness to the noodles. It argued that the expiry date was clearly printed on the sealed, FSSAI-compliant product and that consumers were expected to verify it before purchase. It also submitted that the manufacturer was a necessary party and relied on in-store notices advising customers to check product details and expiry dates before billing.

Observations and Decision

The Commission observed that Reliance Retail had sold an expired food product, as the noodles purchased on 26 February 2026 had expired on 28 November 2025. It held that under modern consumer law, the principle of caveat venditor (let the seller beware) applies, and that it is the retailer's absolute statutory duty to ensure that no expired food item is displayed or sold to consumers. The Commission rejected the retailer's defence that consumers were expected to check expiry dates before purchase, holding that in-store notices advising customers to verify product details could not absolve the retailer of its statutory obligations. It also rejected the plea that the manufacturer was a necessary party, observing that the lapse occurred entirely at the retail stage due to the retailer's failure to remove the expired stock from its shelves. The Commission further held that the sale of an expired food product itself constituted deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, and that the absence of medical evidence did not absolve the retailer of liability.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed Reliance Retail Limited to refund the purchase price of the product, pay ₹15,000 as compensation for the mental agony, anxiety and harassment suffered by the complainant's family, and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs, with the amounts to be paid within 30 days from the date of the order.

Case Title: Jugal Kishore v. Reliance Retail Limited

Case No.: DC/18/CC/59/2026

Click Here To Read/Download The Order