Choudhary claimed he found the foreign object inside a packet bearing the green dot symbol for vegetarian products. The commission held that such contamination was capable of causing deep distress to a vegetarian consumer and warranted compensation even without proof of physical illness.

Purchase, complaint and denial

According to the complaint, Choudhary purchased five sealed packets of Lays Red Chilli Flavour chips along with other grocery items on July 6, 2025, after making a UPI payment of Rs 150. On reaching home, he and his sister opened one of the sealed packets and began eating the chips. They allegedly discovered what appeared to be the tail of an animal or insect, with visible hair strands, embedded inside one of the chips.

The complainant said he immediately preserved the contaminated packet as evidence, threw away the remaining packets out of fear and sent a legal notice to PepsiCo on July 10, 2025. Receiving no satisfactory response, he approached the consumer commission seeking compensation for deficiency in service, mental harassment and litigation expenses.

PepsiCo contested the complaint and argued that the retailer from whom the chips had been purchased had not been made a party to the proceedings. The company said the complainant had failed to produce a retail invoice linking the UPI transaction to the specific packet and had not submitted the allegedly contaminated product to an approved food testing lab for scientific analysis.

The company said its manufacturing facilities follow internationally recognised food safety standards, including ‘FSSC 22000’ and ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’, through fully automated production systems, making such contamination virtually impossible.

Commission rejects objections

The commission rejected the company’s objections, holding that because the chips were sold in a sealed, tamper-evident packet, liability under the Consumer Protection Act rested squarely with the manufacturer. Consequently, the retailer was not a necessary party for the proceedings.

The bench also brushed aside PepsiCo’s objection that the complaint had incorrectly referred to the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since the complainant was a 19-year-old appearing without legal assistance, mentioning the wrong year was merely a technical error that could not defeat a genuine consumer grievance, it said.

A significant aspect of the ruling concerned the absence of laboratory testing. The commission invoked the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself”, holding that the alleged foreign object was visibly embedded inside the chips and therefore a lab exam was not necessary.

It also noted that because food products are perishable, delayed laboratory analysis would have limited evidentiary value. The photographs, the preserved packet and the original wrapper together constituted reliable evidence, it held.

The commission was also critical of PepsiCo’s evidence, noting that the affidavit relied upon had been filed by a senior manager who lacked personal knowledge of the manufacturing operations. No affidavit from the concerned plant supervisor, shift records or quality clearance documents had been produced to rebut the complainant’s evidence, it observed.

Refund, compensation ordered

Holding PepsiCo responsible for product liability, deficiency in service and negligence, the commission directed the company to refund the purchase price of Rs 20 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until payment. It further awarded Rs 20,000 as compensation for the mental agony, anxiety and emotional distress suffered by the complainant and his family, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

The commission concluded that the presence of a biological contaminant inside a sealed packet directly contradicted the product’s vegetarian representation and amounted to a serious manufacturing defect for which the manufacturer was legally responsible.

Consumer takeaway

The ruling reinforces that manufacturers can be held directly liable for defects found inside sealed food products, even if the retailer is not made a party. It also shows that consumers need not always produce laboratory reports where the defect is plainly visible, and that consumer commissions can award compensation for mental agony caused by contaminated food, particularly when it contradicts representations such as the vegetarian green dot symbol.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh helpline: 1800-180-8087) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.