1 week ago
Mumbai Commission Revives Nine-Year-Old Complaint Over ₹30 Chakali Receipt
Vincent D'Souza bought a ₹30 packet of chakali from a Mumbai shop.
He said the receipt did not explain what product he had bought.
It also did not show when the food was made, when it would expire, or how much it weighed.
He further alleged that he paid too much.
A district consumer forum rejected his complaint in 2017 without hearing it fully.
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission said that decision was too brief and did not properly consider the issue.
It said food sellers should give consumers important product details.
The case will now return to the district commission for a proper hearing.
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission revived Vincent D'Souza's complaint against Shreeji Foods over a ₹30 chakali purchase.
The receipt listed only one item costing ₹30 and omitted the product name, manufacturing date, expiry date and weight.
D'Souza also alleged that the retailer charged him more than it should have.
A District Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint at the admission stage on November 17, 2017.
The State Commission set aside that decision and ordered the South Mumbai District Commission to admit and hear the complaint.
- Who
- Vincent D'Souza filed the complaint against Shreeji Foods; the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission ordered a fresh hearing.
- What
- The State Commission set aside the dismissal of a complaint concerning a ₹30 chakali receipt that lacked product details.
- Where
- The dispute concerns Shreeji Foods at CST Subway in Mumbai and will be heard by the District Consumer Commission, South Mumbai.
- When
- The district commission dismissed the complaint on November 17, 2017; the State Commission's decision was reported on August 21, 2026.
- Why
- The State Commission found that the receipt omitted vital food-product information and said the district commission's dismissal was cryptic.
Consumer and State Commission's View
District Commission and Retailer Position
Whether the complaint should proceed
Consumer and State Commission's View
D'Souza argued that the receipt's missing product information and alleged excess charge justified a consumer complaint. The State Commission held that he had made out a case for admission.
District Commission and Retailer Position
The District Consumer Commission held in 2017 that the matter did not fall under the Consumer Protection Act and that there appeared to be no deficiency in service. Shreeji Foods' representative appeared during the appeal but made no submission.
Adequacy of the receipt
Consumer and State Commission's View
The State Commission found that a receipt stating only that one item was sold for ₹30 deprived the consumer of vital information about the food product.
District Commission and Retailer Position
The article does not report a substantive response from Shreeji Foods disputing the allegations or explaining the receipt.
Quality of the district order
Consumer and State Commission's View
The State Commission called the district commission's order cryptic and said it did not show application of mind.
District Commission and Retailer Position
The district commission had dismissed the complaint at the admission stage rather than ordering a full hearing.
Key facts
- Purchase value
- ₹30
- Product
- One packet of chakali
- Retailer
- Shreeji Foods, CST Subway, Mumbai
- Missing receipt details
- Product name, manufacturing date, expiry date and weight
- District decision
- Complaint dismissed at the admission stage on November 17, 2017
- State Commission action
- Appeal allowed; dismissal set aside and complaint ordered to be admitted
- Additional receipt detail
- No GST was charged
Quotes
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The state consumer dispute resolution commission hearing D'Souza's appeal.
“It is the duty of the opponent to provide all the details of the article sold to the consumer including the manufacturing as well as expiry date.”
freepressjournal.in
“The order passed by the District Consumer Commission is cryptic. It does not show application of mind.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Kerala cosmetic store fined Rs 15,000 for selling expired product
Karnataka man wins Rs 10,000 over Rs 10 carry bag
Delhi Woman Wins Compensation After Bra Overcharging Dispute
Uttarakhand Commission Orders Payout Over Undersized Pizza
Ernakulam Commission Penalizes Retailer Over Misleading Onam Offer
Maharashtra Commission Orders IVF Doctor to Pay Surrogacy Compensation
Study-abroad firm ordered to refund Rs 11 lakh to student
Woman wins Rs 6.3 lakh over negligent dental root canals
Citi Bank Ordered To Refund ₹12.91 Lakh Home Loan Interest
