The Punjab Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held Nestle India Ltd and a Ludhiana-based shop guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service after they allegedly sold a Maggi noodles packet contaminated with fungus to a man in 2021. The commission directed them to refund Rs 68 and pay Rs 10,000 as compensation jointly.President Justice Daya Chaudhary and Vishav Kant Garg (member) were hearing the appeal filed by Nestle India and the local store challenging the district commission’s 2024 order directing them to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the man. “The district commission had thoroughly discussed every issue one by one and had rightly held the opposite parties (Nestle India and the store) are liable for ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ under the Consumer Protection Act. If the product is apparently unhygienic or unfit for human consumption, then the seller/manufacturer cannot escape its liability simply by taking the plea that the consumer had not produced a laboratory report,” the July 14 order read. Pointing out that the sale of “spurious and adulterated product” has been declared as an offence under the Consumer Protection Act, the commission held that when the “contamination” in the product has clearly been established, no person “presumes” to consume the unhygienic product.“When the documents have categorically proved the fault, therefore, withholding the relief only for the lack of a laboratory report is unjustified,” it added.Black fungus in MaggiOne Simaranjit Singh, a resident of Fatehgarh Sahib, claimed he purchased a 20-gram packet of Maggi noodles from a local shop on July 3, 2021. When his mother opened the packet the next day to prepare it, she found it visibly contaminated with black fungus.The man’s counsel, advocate Beant Kaur, argued that repeated complaints to Nestle India’s customer care and a legal notice drew no response, forcing him to approach the district consumer commission.Story continues below this adThe district commission in its August 2024 order held Nestle India and the store concerned liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and directed them to pay Rs 10,000 along with the refund of the amount of Rs 68. Aggrieved by this decision, the said company and the store approached the state commission with this appeal.Countering the company’s demand for scientific proof, Singh’s counsel emphasised that he had physically produced the contaminated Maggie noodles packet before the district commission, arguing that because the product was visibly unfit for consumption to the naked eye, an independent laboratory report was entirely unnecessary to establish the defect in the product.‘Not fit for consumption’Noting that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted with the intention to resolve the “petty disputes” of the consumers and to safeguard their interest by providing them speedy and inexpensive justice, the commission clarified that the objective of the consumer commissions is to decide the disputes between the parties as “expeditiously as possible”. The commission noted that the lab reports themselves carried a disclaimer stating the results pertained only to the sample tested, and not to the entire batch released in the market. It also noted that the district commission’s 2021 order recorded that Maggi noodles produced before it were “scarily seen that Maggi noodles not fit for human consumption” with visible fungus.Story continues below this adIt further noted that Nestle India, in its written arguments, had itself conceded that contamination was possible if a sealed packet developed punctures and was stored improperly during the monsoon season, undercutting its own defence.Accordingly, the commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the district commission’s August 29, 2024 order directing Nestle India Ltd and the shop to jointly refund Rs 68 with 8 per cent annual interest from the date of purchase, along with Rs 10,000 as compensation, within 30 days.Nestle’s defenceAppearing for Nestle India, advocate V K Pandey contended that the company’s products are manufactured under the highest hygiene standards and carry the Food Safety System Certification 22000, as mandated by law.Pandey argued that the man had deliberately refused to hand over the allegedly defective noodles packet to the company’s representative for a government laboratory analysis. He further added that, left with no other option, Nestle sent a reference sample from the same batch to an FSSAI-notified accredited laboratory (INTERTEK) for evaluation.Story continues below this adPandey added that the laboratory found the reference sample fully compliant across all parameters, noting intact pack integrity and the complete absence of any mould, foreign matter, or infestation.The company’s counsel asserted that only a proper scientific examination could establish the presence of fungus in a product. He argued that without handing over the packet for testing and producing scientific evidence, the consumer’s allegations could not simply be accepted as the gospel truth.TakeawayThe ruling highlights that a manufacturer cannot escape liability for a contaminated product merely by citing a laboratory report on a different sample when the defect is visible to the naked eye. For consumers, visible unfitness of a product is enough to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, without needing an independent lab test.For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Chandigarh: 0172-270-0183) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Story continues below this ad(Written by Avinash Verma, Avinash is an Intern with The Indian Express)