₹5 Packet, 4 Grams of Chips: Jaipur Consumer Commission Holds PepsiCo Liable for Short-Weight Lay’s

Chandraman Jalan v. Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt. Ltd. & PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.¹ arose from a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jaipur, Rajasthan, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices over an underweight packet of Lay’s potato chips priced at ₹5. The complainant, Chandraman Jalan, is the proprietor of M/s Jalan Building and Hardware Store. He stated that on 10.11.2020 he purchased various food items from Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt. Ltd. for serving guests at his residence. The purchase included a packet of Lay’s potato chips manufactured by PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., and an invoice was issued on the same date.

According to the complainant, while serving the chips to his guests, he noticed that the packet felt unusually light. He weighed the contents and found that the packet contained only 4 grams of chips, against the declared net weight of 15 grams. He then raised the issue with Metro Cash & Carry but alleged that the company did not address his grievance appropriately. Not receiving a satisfactory response, he filed the consumer complaint on 06.04.2022 against both Metro Cash & Carry, the seller, and PepsiCo India Holdings, the manufacturer, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Metro Cash & Carry contested the complaint. Its defence was that it was only the retailer of a sealed product, that any shortage in the quantity of chips could have occurred during the manufacturing process, and that the manufacturer should therefore be held responsible for such a defect. PepsiCo India Holdings, on the other hand, did not appear despite service of notice. The Commission accordingly proceeded ex parte against it, and no defence was placed on record on its behalf.

The issue before the Commission was whether the shortfall between the declared net weight of 15 grams and the actual contents of 4 grams amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and if so, whether liability lay with the retailer, the manufacturer, or both.

The Commission, comprising President Ashok Sharma and Members Ajay Kumar and Supriya Agarwal, examined the complainant’s evidence, including the purchase invoice and his allegation regarding the weight of the packet. It took note that PepsiCo had been served with notice but chose not to appear, and that the proceedings against it were therefore conducted ex parte. In the absence of any response from the manufacturer, the complainant’s account of the weight discrepancy remained unrefuted on the record. The Commission treated the discrepancy as a case of misrepresentation of product weight on the part of the manufacturer, a matter bearing directly on the accuracy of labelling and the protection of consumers from unfair trade practices.

On liability, the Commission separated the two opposite parties. It accepted, in substance, the position taken by Metro Cash & Carry that a retailer cannot be held responsible for the contents of a sealed packet which reaches it in that condition from the manufacturer. The complaint against Metro Cash & Carry was therefore dismissed. The complaint against PepsiCo India Holdings was allowed, the Commission holding the manufacturer responsible for the misleading declaration of net weight and the resulting loss to the consumer.

By its order dated September [day to be confirmed], the Commission directed PepsiCo to refund ₹5, being the purchase price of the packet, with interest at 6% per annum from 06.04.2022, the date of filing of the complaint, until payment. It further directed PepsiCo to pay ₹5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs, a total of ₹8,000 under these two heads, within one month from the date of the order. The Commission also provided for default: if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the ₹8,000 towards compensation and litigation costs will carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order until payment.

The ruling is notable less for the amount, which is modest, than for the principles it applies. A manufacturer that is served and chooses not to appear leaves the consumer’s evidence on weight uncontested, and bears the consequence of an ex parte finding. At the same time, the decision draws a clear line of responsibility within the supply chain, holding the manufacturer, and not the retailer, responsible for a defect in a sealed product’s contents. It also shows that even a small-value consumer claim, over a ₹5 packet, can result in compensation for mental harassment and costs where a net-weight declaration is found to be misleading.

Citations

1. Chandraman Jalan v. Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt. Ltd. & PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Complaint no. 160/2022 ↩︎

Expositor(s): Adv. Pratistha Dahiya