Claimed Four, Delivered Three: Bhopal Consumer Forces Corporate Accountability

Bhopal, December 29 — In a landmark decision reinforcing consumer rights, the Bhopal District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on Britannia Industries Limited and retail giant D-Mart for misleading packaging and unfair trade practices. The ruling comes after a consumer complaint revealed that a biscuit packet claiming to contain four snack packs had only three inside.

The case was filed by Sumit Srivastava, a resident of Kolar, Bhopal, who purchased a Britannia Fifty-Fifty Jeera biscuit pack from D-Mart for ₹180. Although the outer packaging clearly mentioned four snack packs, the contents fell short by one. When Srivastava approached the retailer to raise the issue, his complaint was allegedly ignored, prompting him to seek legal recourse.

After examining the matter, the Consumer Commission rejected the defenses put forward by both companies. D-Mart claimed it was merely a retailer and not responsible for product quantity, while Britannia maintained that its products adhere to strict quality and quantity standards. The Commission dismissed both arguments, holding both the manufacturer and the retailer jointly responsible for misleading the consumer.

The bench, comprising Commission President Giribala Singh and Member Anjum Firoz, ruled that the incorrect claim on the packaging amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The order further stated that if the penalty is not paid within the stipulated time, the companies will be liable to pay 9% annual interest on the fine amount.

Consumer rights advocates have hailed the verdict as a strong message to large corporations. Counsel for the complainant, Advocates Arun Goswami and Swiksha Prakash, emphasized that consumers should not hesitate to approach legal forums when cheated. “Even a small discrepancy is a violation of consumer trust. This judgment proves that no company is above the law,” they said.

The case stands as a reminder that accurate labeling is not optional but a legal obligation, and that informed consumers can hold even the biggest brands accountable.