Archive · 6 Oct 2026
Woman Wins Rs 1.25 Lakh Over Insect in Sealed Drink
A woman bought a bottle of orange fruit drink in 2011.
She said she saw a dead insect inside before opening the bottle.
She complained to the company, but said her problem was not resolved.
A consumer commission later ordered the company and the shop to pay her.
The company argued that the bottle was tested too late and questioned the laboratory’s report.
The state commission disagreed.
It said an expired drink might spoil, but that would not explain an insect appearing inside a sealed bottle.
It upheld the refund, compensation and legal costs ordered for the woman.
A woman said she found a dead insect in an unopened one-litre orange fruit beverage bought for Rs 50 in October 2011.
The South Mumbai district consumer commission held the beverage company and its authorised seller liable in August 2018.
It ordered a Rs 50 refund, Rs 1 lakh in compensation and Rs 25,000 in litigation costs.
The manufacturer challenged the laboratory report and argued the bottle was tested after its four-month shelf life.
On September 30, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the insect in a sealed bottle indicated a manufacturing or packaging defect.
- Who
- A woman, the beverage manufacturer and its authorised seller; the appeal was decided by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- The state commission dismissed the manufacturer's appeal and upheld the district commission's order for a refund, compensation and litigation costs.
- When
- The bottle was bought on October 23, 2011; the district order was issued on August 30, 2018; the state commission's order was dated September 30, with the year unstated.
- Where
- South Mumbai, Maharashtra.
- Why
- The commission found that a dead insect in a sealed bottle indicated a manufacturing or packaging defect and deficiency in service.
Consumer Commission
Beverage Manufacturer
Laboratory testing
Consumer Commission
The commission said visual examination could establish whether the seal was intact and whether a visible foreign object was inside; chemical analysis was secondary.
Beverage Manufacturer
The manufacturer argued that the laboratory was not an appropriate laboratory under the law and that its report was legally invalid.
Testing after shelf life
Consumer Commission
The commission said the end of shelf life could cause degradation or spoilage, but could not explain a dead insect inside a sealed bottle.
Beverage Manufacturer
The manufacturer argued the bottle was sent for testing only after its four-month shelf life had expired, preventing timely scientific testing.
Keeping the bottle as evidence
Consumer Commission
The commission found no fault with the woman retaining the bottle, reasoning that handing primary evidence to the accused party before legal proceedings could jeopardise her case.
Beverage Manufacturer
The manufacturer alleged that the woman had initially refused to hand over the bottle, preventing examination.
- Product
- One-litre orange fruit-based beverage
- Bottle price
- Rs 50
- Purchase date
- October 23, 2011
- Consumer complaint
- Filed with the South Mumbai district commission on January 27, 2012
- District commission order
- August 30, 2018
- Award upheld
- Rs 50 refund, Rs 1 lakh compensation and Rs 25,000 litigation costs
- Manufacturer's argument
- The bottle was tested after its four-month shelf life, and the company challenged the laboratory's suitability.
- State commission decision
- The appeal was dismissed on September 30; the year was not stated.
