4 min readNew DelhiSep 8, 2026 05:30 PM IST
The complainant said that there was dirt and insects inside the drink. (Image generated using AI)
A consumer commission in Punjab recently directed a retailer and a manufacturer to pay Rs 20,060 after a customer found dirt and insects in a mango fruit drink, observing that the evidence proved that the juice was inappropriate for consumption.
President Ashish Kumar Grover and members Urmila Kumari and Navdeep Kumar Garg while holding the opposite parties liable for deficiency in service and negligence, directed them to refund the purchase price of Rs 60, pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant and deposit Rs 10,000 in the customer legal aid account.
“We have seen the original bottle and we observe that there is dirt and insects in the above said…drink which can be seen with the naked eye. The opposite parties have failed to produce any cogent evidence in order to rebut the above said evidence produced by the complainant,” the order read.
Plea for compensation
According to the complainant, he had purchased two bottles of mango fruit drink for Rs 120 from a supermarket. After opening one bottle at home, he allegedly found dirt and insects inside. He claimed he checked the second bottle and found similar foreign material inside.
The complainant alleged that he approached the retailer, asking it to destroy the stock from the batch and refund the amount, but his request was refused. He subsequently sent a legal notice and approached the consumer commission, seeking a refund and Rs 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony.
The retailer contested the complaint and said that it was merely a seller and had no role in the manufacturing, packaging or quality control of the sealed product. It also argued that the alleged defect could not be established without laboratory testing and that the complainant had failed to produce an analyst’s report or expert evidence.
The manufacturer also denied liability and said that the complainant had not approached its consumer care cell and that the product was manufactured under prescribed food safety standards and underwent multiple quality checks. It further submitted that the product had expired by the time the complaint was adjudicated, making further testing impossible.
Story continues below this ad
The commission after seeing the bottle observed that there was dirt and insects in the drink which could be seen with the naked eye. It noted that the opposite parties had failed to produce any evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant.
“We have gone through the entire evidence produced by the parties. It is established from the evidence produced by the complainant that there was dirt and insects in the Juice in question and the Juice was not in appropriate condition. We have also examined the bottle in question and with the naked eyes the foreign material is shown in the bottle,” the commission said.
Holding the opposite parties liable for deficiency in service and negligence, the commission directed them to refund the purchase amount and also directed them to pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and as litigations expenses. It further directed the opposite parties to deposit Rs 10,000 in customer legal aid account.
Takeaway
Retailers cannot automatically escape liability for defective or contaminated products merely by claiming they are not the manufacturers. If a consumer can produce credible evidence showing that a food product contained visible foreign material, both the seller and manufacturer may be held liable for deficiency in service.
Story continues below this ad
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Punjab: 0800–22577) and Union territories or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Don’t miss out on these stories:
Mother’s 12-year legal battle against LIC ends with court ordering staggering Rs 1.26 crore payout
Widow wins Rs 50 lakh after insurer rejects husband’s critical illness claim over ‘fraud’ record
Man loses Rs 60,000 as card not blocked despite complaint, bank to pay Rs 90,000
Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express (Digital), where he specialises in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish covers court developments and key cases for the audience. Expertise Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of courts into clear, legal content. He also runs liveblogs from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More