24 Seven Held Liable for Unfair Trade Practices Over Expired Product Sale

By Legal Wires 5 Minutes Read

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana), presided by Sh. Satpal (President) and Dr. Sushma Garg (Member), delivered a landmark ruling on June 19, 2024, holding the 24 Seven store accountable for unfair trade practices. The case centered on the sale of expired food products, which led to severe health consequences for the complainant, Avneet Singh Dhillon. The judgment has significant implications for consumer rights, emphasizing the obligation of sellers to ensure the sale of consumable products within their valid shelf life.

Brief Facts:

• Avneet Singh Dhillon, the complainant, purchased groceries, including a packet of Kari & Kari (Japanese Premium Snacks), from the 24 Seven store.
• The total bill amount was Rs. 349/-, and the price of the snack was Rs. 99/-.
• The manufacturing date printed on the snack’s packaging was April 23, 2021, with an expiry date of April 22, 2022.
• On July 11, 2022, the complainant bought the snack, despite it being past its expiry date. Upon consumption, he fell ill and was bedridden for three days.
• Dhillon was diagnosed with food poisoning and, as a result, faced irreparable monetary loss in his business. He missed critical meetings scheduled with the Barista Coffee Company due to his illness.
• A legal notice was sent to the 24 Seven store on July 13, 2022, seeking compensation for mental and physical suffering, as well as financial damages. The seller, however, did not respond.
• Consequently, Dhillon filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission in Panchkula.

Proceedings and Findings:

• The District Commission proceeded ex-parte as the Seller failed to appear during the proceedings.
• The complainant presented evidence, including a bag of the expired product, where he alleged that the Seller had erased part of the expiry date in an attempt to mislead consumers.
• The Commission emphasized the Seller’s fundamental duty to verify and ensure the sale of only fresh, non-expired food items, stating that failure to do so constitutes a serious violation of consumer trust.
• “Selling expired food products is not only a deficiency in service but also an unfair trade practice that poses severe health risks, as demonstrated in this case,” the Commission noted.
• The Commission condemned the Seller’s actions, finding them guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Order and Compensation:

• The District Commission directed the Seller to refund the complainant Rs. 99/-, with 9% interest per annum calculated 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/- as punitive damages, to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF).
• The Commission issued a warning to the Seller against continuing such unfair practices and directed that the judgment be publicized widely to increase consumer awareness.

Click to read: Avneet Singh Dhillon vs 24 Seven, Consumer Case No. CC/300/2022

Legal Wires

Team @LegalWires