Man pays Rs 1.80 extra on pack of biscuits, wins Rs 5,500 consumer payout

4 min readNew DelhiJul 16, 2026 08:00 AM IST

Reliance Retail failed to prove the biscuits were excluded from the 6 per cent discount, making the denial an unfair trade practice, the commission said. (Image generated using AI)

The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Reliance Retail to pay Rs 5,501.80 to a Jaipur consumer, ruling that failing to honour an advertised discount amounted to an “ unfair trade practice”.

Judicial member Mukesh and member Raminivas Saraswat was hearing an appeal filed by Reliance Retail Limited against the March 18, 2025 judgment of the Jaipur II District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. While the state commission upheld the finding of unfair trade practice, it reduced the compensation for mental agony from Rs 10,000 to Rs 500, holding that the earlier amount was excessive in the facts of the case.

“The burden was on the appellant to establish that the Patanjali biscuits were not covered under the 6 per cent discount scheme. Having failed to produce any such evidence, denying the advertised discount amounts to an unfair trade practice,” the commission said on June 29.

The dispute arose from Reliance Retail’s New Year promotional campaign conducted between January 3 and February 10, 2021. Jaipur resident Virendra Singh approached the consumer forum after claiming that despite advertisements promising discounts across Reliance stores, he was charged the full price for a packet of Patanjali biscuits purchased on January 7, 2021, resulting in an excess recovery of Rs 1.80.

Rs 1.80 overcharge

According to the complaint, Singh purchased grocery items worth Rs 276.50 from a Reliance Retail outlet. While checking his bill, he found that the Patanjali biscuit packet, which carried an MRP of Rs 30, had been billed at the full price even though the retailer was advertising a 6 per cent discount.

Had the discount been applied, the biscuits should have cost Rs 28.20 instead of Rs 30, leading to an excess recovery of Rs 1.80. Singh alleged that despite requesting a refund, the retailer refused to return the amount, forcing him to initiate consumer proceedings.

Reliance denied

Reliance Retail defended the complaint by arguing that the Patanjali biscuits purchased by Singh were never part of the promotional discount scheme. It also contended that the consumer had not raised any complaint at the store and therefore no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice could be attributed to the company.

Story continues below this ad

In its appeal, the retailer also argued that the district commission’s award of Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony over an alleged overcharge of Rs 1.80 was highly disproportionate.

Retailer failed to prove its case

The state commission was not convinced by the retailer’s defence. It observed that Reliance had not specifically denied the existence of the 6 per cent promotional discount in its written statement and failed to produce any advertisement or document showing that Patanjali biscuits were excluded from the scheme.

The commission noted that photographs and promotional material produced by the consumer clearly reflected advertisements offering a 6 per cent discount. Since Reliance failed to establish that the biscuits were outside the offer, it held that the consumer had been induced to purchase the product on the basis of the promotional campaign and was wrongly denied the promised benefit.

Liability retained, compensation reduced

While upholding the finding of unfair trade practice, the commission held that the compensation awarded by the district commission required modification.

It observed that there is no fixed formula for awarding compensation for mental agony and held that granting Rs 10,000 over an excess recovery of Rs 1.80 was disproportionate.

Accordingly, it reduced the compensation for mental agony to Rs 500.

However, the commission retained the directions requiring Reliance Retail to refund the excess amount of Rs 1.80 and pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.

The total amount payable to the consumer consequently stands at Rs 5,501.80.

Significance

The order reinforces an important consumer protection principle that retailers cannot make customers pay for carry bags that prominently display the retailer’s own logo, as such bags also function as advertisements for the business.

Story continues below this ad

The commission reinforced an important consumer protection principle that the value of the overcharge may be small, but misleading promotional offers and failure to honour advertised discounts cannot be treated lightly under consumer law.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Rajasthan helpline: 0141-2372237) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.

Expertise

Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:

Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.

Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.

Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.

Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

Tags:

bag

consumer court

Reliance Retail