Child falls ill from expired noodles, family wins Rs 20,000 from grocery store

Holding that shoppers cannot be expected to inspect expiry dates on every grocery item they buy, a Himachal Pradesh consumer commission has held Reliance Retail liable for selling an expired packet of instant noodles allegedly consumed by a minor girl who fell ill soon after.

The commission said keeping expired food off store shelves is the retailer’s “absolute, non-delegable duty” and ordered it to refund the product price besides paying Rs 20,000 in compensation and litigation costs.

The Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president Hemanshu Mishra and members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur were hearing a complaint filed by one Jugal Kishore against Reliance Retail Limited over the sale of an expired packet of Spicy Korean instant noodles purchased from its Reliance Smart Point outlet at Bhawarna in Kangra district.

“It is the absolute, non-delegable duty of a retailer to ensure that no expired food item is displayed on shelves or sold to general consumers. A consumer cannot be expected to turn every packet upside down or inspect obscurely placed dates at the bottom base of a package while picking up daily grocery items from open retail shelves,” the commission said on July 6.

Child fell ill

According to the complaint, Jugal Kishore purchased a packet of Spicy Korean instant noodles from the Reliance Smart Point outlet on February 26, 2026, after paying the full retail price. After returning home, his minor daughter ate a small portion of the noodles.

After eating those noodles, she allegedly began vomiting and felt severely unwell. Concerned, Kishore examined the packet and discovered that it carried an expiry date of November 28, 2025, nearly three months before it had been sold to him.

Alleging that the retailer had negligently displayed and sold an expired food item, thereby exposing his family to a serious health risk, he approached the consumer commission seeking a refund of the product price along with compensation and litigation costs.

Story continues below this ad

Reliance denied liability

Reliance Retail contested the complaint, arguing that there was no medical evidence or laboratory analysis establishing a direct link between the child’s illness and the noodles. The retailer maintained that the product was a sealed, branded and pre-packaged food item complying with Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regulations and that the expiry date had been clearly printed on the wrapper.

It argued that consumers were expected to inspect such details before making a purchase. The company also submitted that the manufacturer should have been made a party to the proceedings and pointed to notices displayed in its stores advising customers to check expiry dates and product details before billing.

Let seller beware

Rejecting these arguments, the commission noted that it was undisputed that the noodles had been sold on February 26 despite expiring on November 28, 2025. It held that the retailer’s reliance on the doctrine of caveat emptor or “let the buyer beware” had no place in modern consumer law involving food products.

Instead, it said the governing principle was caveat venditor—”let the seller beware”—especially where public health was involved. The commission further held that consumers purchasing everyday grocery items from open shelves cannot reasonably be expected to inspect every packet for expiry dates before putting them into their shopping basket.

Story continues below this ad

‘Classic instance of negligence’

This is a classic instance of independent retail negligence, making the retailer directly and solely liable.

In ordinary human conduct, a father will not falsely depose about his minor child falling sick merely to enrich himself with a small compensation claim.

The opposite party’s (Reliance Retail Limited ) defence relying on the doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) holds absolutely no merit under modern Indian law.

The modern legal framework operates strictly on the principle of caveat venditor (let the seller beware), especially concerning human consumption and public health.

Displaying internal store notices advising consumers to check expiry dates does not absolve a retail business of its statutory liabilities under the Consumer Protection Act.

Definitely selling expired food items poses a severe risk to public health and safety, directly infringing upon a consumer’s ‘Right to Safety’ guaranteed under Section 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Allowing the complaint, the commission directed Reliance Retail Limited to refund the full purchase price of the noodles. It also awarded Rs 15,000 as compensation for the mental agony, anxiety and harassment suffered by the family, besides Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses. The amount has been directed to be paid within 30 days of the order.

Consumer takeaway

The order reinforces that consumers are not legally expected to shoulder the responsibility of identifying expired food products displayed for sale. If a retailer sells an expired product, it may be held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice even if the expiry date is printed on the packaging.

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.