A district consumer disputes redressal commission in Delhi has ordered a local grocery retailer to compensate a customer Rs 15,000 and refund the cost of adulterated sweets following the sale of spoiled, worm-infested Soan Papdi during the 2024 festive period.
The bench, comprising President Monika Aggarwal Srivastava alongside members Dr. Rajender Dhar and Ritu Garodia, ruled that the shopkeeper must reimburse Rs 1,250 for the defective confectionery along with seven percent annual interest calculated from the purchase date of October 26, 2024. The panel directed the merchant to comply with the directive within 60 days, warning that failure to meet the deadline would escalate the interest rate to eight percent per annum across the full monetary award until complete realization.
Evidence Of Tampered Packaging And Spoiled Food
In its evaluation, the forum observed that the date of manufacture on the sweet boxes had been deliberately erased and replaced with an updated 2024 date, preventing the buyer from verifying product freshness. Photographic evidence submitted during proceedings confirmed that the confectionery was crumbling and unfit for human consumption. The commission emphasized that vendors supplying compromised food products expose buyers to severe health risks, violating consumer rights to safe, properly labeled edibles.
Lack Of Defense From Retailer And Manufacturer
Neither party named in the suit mounted a valid defense. The consumer forum proceeded ex parte against the neighborhood retail store due to its absence. Additionally, the written response submitted by the sweet manufacturer was excluded from court records because it was submitted after the legally stipulated deadline.
Background Of The Diwali Purchase Complaint
The dispute originated when a resident bought 45 packages of Soan Papdi and approximately a dozen dry fruit boxes on October 26, 2024, intended as festive gifts for workers. Upon distribution, recipients discovered the sealed sweet packages were crumpled, emitted a foul odor, had turned into powder, and contained insects.
When the buyer brought the damaged items back to the shop, the owner offered replacement boxes but failed to deliver them. The customer subsequently preserved several boxes as evidence, purchased alternative presents for staff out of pocket, and lodged formal complaints with the Delhi Health Department as well as the manufacturing brand. In the formal petition, the aggrieved buyer had requested a refund of Rs 5,625, reimbursement for replacement gifts, legal costs, compensation for emotional distress, and Rs 1 lakh for reputational damage.
