Onion packets weigh less than promised; commission orders Rs 20,000 compensation

NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Punjab has directed a supermarket and its parent company to pay Rs 20,000 to a customer who was allegedly supplied underweight onion packets under a promotional offer. The commission found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and passed the order on September 3, 2026. Why did the customer approach the commission?According to the commission order, Vikas Taluja visited the store in Ropar on April 25, 2026 and purchased goods worth Rs 3,299. Under an offer for customers shopping above Rs 999, he was allowed to buy two 2-kg packets of onions at Rs 9 per kg. Taluja alleged that when he checked the packets on the store's weighing machine, one weighed 1.788 kg and the other 1.784 kg. The total weight was about 3.574 kg instead of the promised 4 kg. He also submitted a video recording of the weighing. However, the supermarket claimed that there was no visible weight discrepancy when the packets were sold. It said the customer was later asked to bring the product to the store so that it could be physically verified and the issue resolved, but he declined and filed the complaint. What did the commission find?The bench comprising President Kuljit Pal Singh along with members Ranvir Kaur and Ramesh Kumar Gupta said the weighing was carried out on the store's own machine in the presence of its staff and that the video recording showed the customer informing the staff about the underweight packets. The commission said the store did not send a responsible officer to examine the complaint at the spot. “The weight of the two packets was measured by the complainant in the presence of the staff of the Ops on the weighing machine of the Ops in the store. In this regard, the complainant also relied upon the videography pen-drive Ex.C4, vide which he made the videography during the measurement of the onion packets,” the bench observed. The commission further relied on the video recording and said the customer had asked a responsible officer to witness the measurement, but no such officer came forward. “But despite it, no responsible officer of the store visited at the asking of the complainant to see the underweight packets supplied to the complainant. It further proved the negligence/deficiency in service/unfair trade practice of the OPs that no responsible person of the store made any efforts to resolve the grievance of the complainant at the spot,” the bench added. The commission held that the evidence showed that the customer received less quantity than what was mentioned on the packets and invoice. It said the supply of underweight onions amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. “Hence, we are of the considered opinion that underweight onion packets were supplied by the OPs to the complainant and it is unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on the part of the OPs,” the commission concluded. The complaint was partly allowed. The supermarket and its parent company were jointly and severally directed to pay Rs 20,000 as a lump sum towards compensation and litigation expenses within one month of receiving the certified copy of the order. The commission also directed that if the amount was not paid within the stipulated period, the companies would have to pay interest at 9 percent per annum on the Rs 20,000 amount until realisation.