The in Jaipur has directed Holdings Pvt. Ltd. to compensate a consumer after finding that a packet of Lay’s potato chips contained significantly less product than the declared net weight. The ruling highlights the accountability of manufacturers regarding the accuracy of product labeling and the prevention of unfair trade practices that disadvantage the average consumer.
Allegations of Substandard Weight The dispute originated when the complainant, Chandraman Jalan, purchased various food items, including a packet of Lay's chips, from on . Upon attempting to serve the snacks, the complainant observed that the packaging felt unusually light. After weighing the contents, he discovered the packet contained only 4 grams of chips, despite the label explicitly declaring a net weight of 15 grams.
Following the discovery, the complainant initiated a legal battle by filing a against both the retailer, Metro Cash & Carry, and the manufacturer, . The complaint, registered on , alleged that such a discrepancy amounted to a and constituted an .
During the proceedings, Metro Cash & Carry argued that it was merely a retailer and could not be held responsible for the manufacturing defects inherent in a sealed product. The retailer contended that any shortage in weight was an issue that rested solely with the manufacturer. , however, failed to enter an appearance before the commission after proper notification, leading the panel to proceed with the case against the company.
Commission’s Findings on Manufacturer Liability The commission, led by President Ashok Sharma and members Ajay Kumar and Supriya Agarwal, examined the evidence provided by the complainant. The bench observed that the weight deficiency was a clear case of . The commission noted that the absence of the manufacturer during the proceedings left the complainant’s testimony regarding the weight discrepancy unrefuted.
In its decision, the commission held that such discrepancies, particularly when occurring on a large scale in retail environments, are indicative of systemic failures. As stated in the judgment,
"The company has a large number of stores across the country. Millions of customers come to buy here, and they are earning crores of rupees by giving less weight in goods from every store. This act of the company falls under the category of
and
."
The commission ultimately dismissed the complaint against Metro Cash & Carry, acknowledging the retailer’s position that it could not be held liable for the contents of a sealed manufacturing packet. Conversely, it upheld the complaint against , finding it responsible for the misleading labeling and the resulting loss to the consumer.
Compensation and Corrective Directions The commission has ordered to pay the complainant a total of ₹8,000 within one month from the date of the order. This sum includes a refund of the product cost—₹5—plus 6% annual interest calculated from the date of filing the complaint, along with ₹5,000 for mental harassment and ₹3,000 for litigation expenses.
If the manufacturer fails to adhere to the payment timeline, the order specifies that the total amount will accrue interest at a rate of 6% per annum until the final payment is realized. This directive serves as a formal mandate requiring the company to rectify the harm caused by the underweight packaging. The judgment underscores the commission's commitment to enforcing consumer protection standards, ensuring that corporate entities are held when their manufacturing processes compromise the rights of the purchasing public. The matter currently stands with the manufacturer to ensure compliance with the compensatory directions issued by the .
underweight food products - unfair trade practice
