The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Vishal Mega Mart guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling an expired packet of Kellogg’s Multigrain Chocos to a consumer. It directed the retailer to refund the price of the product and pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation costs.
The order was passed by commission president Sanjeev Batra and member Monika Bhagat on a complaint filed by Rajwinder Singh of Jassowal village.
According to the order, Rajwinder Singh visited the outlet on Ferozepur Road on December 1, 2025, where he purchased the said product for ₹182, along with other items. After reaching home, he noticed that the product carried a “best before” date of November 1, 2025 — a month before he had purchased it.
The consumer approached the store but alleged that no action was taken. He subsequently sent a legal notice to the company on January 10, 2026, but received “no response”, following which he approached the consumer commission seeking a refund, ₹2 lakh in compensation and litigation expenses.
Vishal Mega Mart, in its defence, denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The company argued that merely producing a bill did not establish that the expired product shown in the photographs was the same product purchased in that particular transaction.
The retailer further claimed that the complainant could have purchased the expired product in an earlier transaction or from another outlet and later linked it to the bill in question. It also alleged that the complaint was part of a series of similarly structured cases and accused the complainant and his associates of deliberately procuring expired products to initiate consumer proceedings and seek disproportionate compensation.
The commission observed that the complainant had produced the invoice as well as photographs of the product, establishing that an expired product had been sold to him. It noted that the retailer itself claimed to have robust inventory-management and compliance systems.
The commission observed that the retailer could have easily checked its inventory records to establish whether the product in question had been sold earlier or could have produced details such as the batch number, manufacturing date, expiry date and product description corresponding to the invoice. However, no such evidence was placed before the commission.
Calling the retailer’s assertion that the product could have come from another transaction “fanciful” and devoid of merit or logic, the commission held that the best evidence available with the opposite parties had been withheld.
It directed the opposite parties to refund ₹182, the price of the product, within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. In case of default, they would have to pay ₹200 per day from the date of the order until payment, subject to a maximum of ₹10,000.
Besides this, the commission awarded composite compensation and litigation costs of ₹10,000 to the complainant.