NEW DELHI: The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its July 15 order has held Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) liable for selling an underweight Surf Excel detergent pouch. However, while hearing HUL’s appeal against a 2023 district commission order, the state commission reduced the compensation awarded to the consumer.Surf Excel underweight complaint: How the case beganThe case dates back to September 2020, when Gyan Chandra Garg, a resident of Ramnagar in Nainital district, purchased a case of Surf Excel EW detergent for Rs 512. On weighing one of the packets, he found that although it was labelled as weighing 90 grams, it actually weighed only 70 grams. After which he sent legal notices to HUL and the sellers, and eventually filed a consumer complaint before the district consumer commission in Nainital, seeking Rs 1,00,000 as compensation with 18 per cent annual interest, according to the court order.HUL contested the complaint, arguing that the complainant had not proved he was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, had not presented batch or packaging details, and that the matter fell under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, rather than consumer law.The district commission rejected these arguments and allowed the complaint — directing HUL to pay Rs 50,000 for mental agony and financial loss, Rs 10,000 as litigation costs, and imposing a separate penalty of Rs 50,000 on HUL for unfair trade practice. It also directed the complainant to take the matter to the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for further action.HUL then appealed against this order before the state commission.Why did the consumer commission rule against HUL?The bench, comprising President Kumkum Rani and Member B.S. Manral, first rejected HUL’s argument that the district commission had no jurisdiction because the matter fell under the Legal Metrology Act, citing Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:“Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In view of this, it can not be said that the district commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint,” the bench said.On the question of the underweight packet, the commission noted that during the district commission proceedings, HUL’s own counsel had been present when the sealed packet was weighed on an electronic kitchen scale and confirmed to be 70 grams, without raising any objection. The bench observed:“There remains no room for doubt that the product sold to the complainant was less in weight/short weight and the complainant had duly discharged his burden/onus and has been able his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Thus, the District Commission was perfectly justified in allowing the consumer complaint, as there was clear-cut unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants in selling a short weight product to the complainant.“However, on the question of the amount awarded, the commission took a different view, holding:“In our considered opinion, the amount of Rs 50,000 awarded towards mental agony and financial loss is on the higher side and the same needs to be reduced to Rs 40,000. The litigation expenses of Rs 10,000 awarded by the district commission are perfectly justified.”The commission also set aside the Rs 50,000 penalty imposed by the district commission, as well as its direction to the complainant to approach the CCPA, terming the latter “unwarranted.”Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, and HUL was directed to pay the complainant Rs 40,000 as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, along with Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
