90g detergent pouch turns out to be 70g, consumer wins Rs 50,000 compensation

5 min readNew DelhiJul 17, 2026 04:36 PM IST

On HUL's own application seeking physical inspection of the product, the complainant produced the sealed detergent pouch before the commission on December 8, 2022. (AI-generated image)

A consumer who questioned why a Surf Excel detergent pouch labelled as 90 gram weighed only 70 gram has won a six-year legal battle against Hindustan Unilever, with the Uttarakhand State Consumer Commission ordering the company to pay Rs 50,000 after holding that selling an underweight 70-gram packet as a 90-gram product amounted to an unfair trade practice.

President Kumkum Rani and member B S Manral was hearing an appeal filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against the August 29, 2023 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nainital. HUL had challenged the district commission’s finding that it had indulged in an unfair trade practice by selling an underweight detergent pouch.

“There remains no room for doubt that the product sold to the complainant was less in weight/short weight… 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,” the commission said on July 15.

The case originated from a purchase made in September 2020 and serves as a reminder that even a Rs 10 household product can become the subject of successful consumer litigation when the contents do not match the promise printed on the packet. While the state commission reduced the compensation awarded by the district forum, it upheld the finding that the consumer had indeed been sold an underweight product.

According to the complaint, Gyan Chand Garg purchased one carton of Surf Excel Easy Wash detergent pouches priced at Rs 10 each from a retailer in Ramnagar, Nainital, on September 22, 2020, paying Rs 512, including GST.

After the purchase, Garg weighed one of the sealed pouches and found that although the packet declared a net weight of 90 gram, it actually weighed only 70 gram. He served legal notices on HUL and the other parties involved in the supply chain. When the issue remained unresolved, he approached the district consumer commission seeking Rs 1 lakh as compensation along with interest.

HUL questioned the complaint

HUL argued that the complainant had not provided details, such as the batch number and packaging particulars, to establish that the product was genuine. It also claimed counterfeit products were common in the region and sought a sample for verification.

Story continues below this ad

The company further contended that disputes relating to weight and quantity were governed by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and therefore the consumer commission lacked jurisdiction. It also argued that the complainant had not followed the statutory procedure of getting the product tested in a laboratory and that storage conditions could affect the weight of detergent products.

Sealed packet weighed before all parties

The turning point came during the proceedings before the District Consumer Commission. On HUL’s own application seeking physical inspection of the product, the complainant produced the sealed detergent pouch before the commission on December 8, 2022. The packet was weighed using an electronic kitchen scale after the scale was examined by lawyers representing all parties and found to be functioning properly.

The sealed packet weighed 70 gram. The commission recorded that HUL’s counsel and the retailer’s counsel did not raise any objection to either the weighing process or the result. The state commission noted that this finding was never challenged separately by HUL and had, hence, attained finality.

Rejecting HUL’s objection on jurisdiction, the state commission held that Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 makes it clear that remedies under the Act are in addition to those available under other laws. It held that the Legal Metrology Act does not prevent consumer forums from deciding complaints involving unfair trade practices and consumer grievances.

Story continues below this ad

Compensation reduced but HUL held liable

While upholding the finding of unfair trade practice, the state commission partly allowed HUL’s appeal on the quantum of relief. The district commission had awarded Rs 50,000 towards mental agony and financial loss, Rs 10,000 as litigation costs, imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on HUL and directed the complainant to approach the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

The state commission reduced the compensation to Rs 40,000, retained the Rs 10,000 litigation costs and set aside both the Rs 50,000 penalty and the direction to approach the CCPA, holding those directions to be unwarranted. As a result, HUL has been directed to pay Rs 50,000 to the consumer.

Significance

The ruling reinforces that consumer forums can hold manufacturers accountable for underweight packaged products even when similar issues are covered by the Legal Metrology Act, affirming that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional and not exclusive.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

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:

consumer court

Hindustan Unilever Limited