Summary of this article
Consumer commission holds HUL responsible for underweight Surf Excel pack sold improperly.
Buyer found 70g detergent instead of labelled 90g, leading to legal action.
State panel reduces compensation to Rs 50,000 after removing additional unfair penalty.
A consumer complaint over an underweight Surf Excel detergent pack has resulted in a ruling against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL). The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the company responsible for selling a product with less quantity than mentioned on the label. However, while hearing HUL’s appeal, the commission also modified the compensation awarded to the consumer.
The complaint was filed by Gyan Chandra Garg, a resident of Ramnagar in Uttarakhand’s Nainital district, after he purchased a case of Surf Excel EW detergent for Rs 512 in September 2020. On checking the weight of one packet, he found that it contained 70 grams of detergent despite the label mentioning 90 grams. After sending legal notices to HUL and the sellers, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Nainital.
HUL opposed the complaint, arguing that the complainant had not shown that he qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The company also said that details such as the batch number and product packaging were not provided and maintained that the matter should be considered under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, instead of consumer law.
According to a Times of India report, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favour of the consumer in 2023. It directed HUL to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses, imposed a separate penalty of Rs 50,000 for unfair trade practice, and asked the complainant to approach the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for further action.
HUL later challenged the district commission’s order before the State Commission. While examining the appeal, the bench referred to Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and observed that the provisions of the Act apply in addition to other laws. The commission also noted that HUL’s counsel was present when the sealed product was weighed before the district commission and did not object to the process. It held that the evidence showed the product had less quantity than what was declared on the package.
The State Commission upheld the finding that HUL had engaged In an unfair trade practice but changed the compensation amount. It reduced the compensation for mental agony and financial loss from Rs 50,000 to Rs 40,000 while retaining litigation costs of Rs 10,000. The commission also removed the Rs 50,000 penalty imposed by the district commission and set aside the direction asking the complainant to approach the CCPA.
After the modified order, HUL has been directed to pay Rs 40,000 as compensation, along with Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
