A family adhering to a vegetarian lifestyle has been awarded Rs 25,000 after a consumer advocacy group in Himachal Pradesh mandated PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited to provide compensation for the considerable emotional and cultural distress they experienced. This decision followed the family’s discovery of what seemed to be the tail of an animal or insect within a sealed packet of Lays chips.
The Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by President Hemanshu Mishra along with members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur, reviewed a complaint lodged by 19-year-old Aryan Choudhary against PepsiCo India. The commission noted that the family had encountered a foreign object resembling an animal or insect tail, complete with visible hair strands, embedded among the chips. On July 6, the commission stated that the emotional and cultural impact on a vegetarian family due to such contamination warranted a compensation of Rs 20,000 to the complainant.
Choudhary recounted that he had purchased five sealed packets of Lays Red Chilli Flavour chips alongside other groceries on July 6, 2025, for Rs 150 via UPI payment. Upon returning home, he and his sister opened one of the packets and discovered the foreign object within the chips. Following this unsettling find, Choudhary preserved the contaminated packet as evidence, discarded the other packets due to concern, and sent a legal notification to PepsiCo on July 10, 2025. Unhappy with the company’s lack of a satisfactory reply, he sought redress through the consumer commission for service deficiencies, emotional distress, and legal expenses.
In its defense, PepsiCo argued that the retailer from which the chips were purchased should have been included in the proceedings. The corporation contended that Choudhary did not present a retail invoice linking the UPI payment to the specific packet and failed to submit the contaminated chips for scientific examination at an accredited food testing laboratory. The company emphasized that its manufacturing processes comply with global food safety standards, such as ‘FSSC 22000’ and ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’, making contamination unlikely.
The commission dismissed PepsiCo’s arguments, asserting that the liability for the product fell on the manufacturer since the chips were sold in a sealed, tamper-proof package. Consequently, the retailer’s involvement was deemed unnecessary. Additionally, the commission disregarded PepsiCo’s claim that the complaint incorrectly cited the outdated Consumer Protection Act of 1986, noting that the error was minor given that the complainant was only 19 years old and represented himself.
A notable element of the ruling was the lack of laboratory testing. The commission applied the legal principle of res ipsa loquitur, which implies that the evidence speaks for itself, concluding that the visibly embedded object in the chips negated the need for lab analysis. The commission also observed that due to the perishable nature of food products, any delay in testing would diminish the evidential value. The photographs, the preserved packet, and the original packaging collectively served as credible evidence.
The commission criticized PepsiCo’s defense, highlighting that an affidavit provided by a senior manager lacked firsthand knowledge of the manufacturing process. The absence of supporting affidavits from the relevant plant supervisor or related quality assurance documents further weakened the company’s case.
Ultimately, the commission held PepsiCo accountable for product liability, service deficiencies, and negligence. It ordered the company to refund the purchase amount of Rs 20 along with interest at a rate of 9 percent per annum from the date the complaint was filed until payment was made. Additionally, the commission awarded Rs 20,000 for the mental distress, anxiety, and emotional turmoil experienced by Choudhary and his family, along with Rs 5,000 to cover legal costs.
This ruling emphasizes that manufacturers can be held directly accountable for defects found in sealed food products, regardless of whether the retailer is included in the proceedings. It also indicates that consumers may not always need to present laboratory findings when the defect is clearly visible and that compensation for emotional distress due to contaminated food is permissible, especially when it contradicts claims such as vegetarian labeling.
Consumers seeking assistance may reach out to the consumer helpline specific to their states (Himachal Pradesh helpline: 1800-180-8087) or contact the National Consumer Helpline at 1915.
Vineet Upadhyay serves as an Assistant Editor at The Indian Express, focusing on specialized coverage concerning the Indian judicial system.
