Vamanan attributed the medical problem solely to the consumption of those dates, as this was the only “outside food” he had consumed. When he checked the package, he found a sticker which mentioned the expiry date as April 2004, while the original expiry date, embossed in German language, showed that the product had expired much earlier, in February 2002—about 14 months prior to purchase. The dates were imported by Pacificphyto Products and supplied by R.B. Traders to the store from which he purchased the product.
The various agencies involved in the distribution chain kept shifting responsibility for selling the expired product in the market. Vamanan approached the Consumer Association of India in Chennai for assistance. The Association got the remaining dates tested by the public analyst of the Health Department, Corporation of Chennai, who reported that the “sample contained live insects” and was unfit for human consumption. The government analyst at the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, attached to the Food Analysis Laboratory at the King Institute, also reported a similar finding.
Vamanan filed a complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Commission seeking compensation from all those involved in the distribution chain, viz., the importer, the supplier, and the store which had finally sold the product. Vamanan did not produce any evidence to show that he was hospitalised, but the State Commission accepted his word and awarded approximately ~62,000 as compensation, payable jointly and severally by all parties.
Food World Supermarkets challenged the order on various grounds by filing an appeal before the National Commission. It reiterated that it had not fixed any sticker to alter the date mentioned on the package. It also contended that the analysis reports were unacceptable as the samples were sent for analysis “behind their back”, without informing them.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC or National Commission) observed that the translation from German to English was incorrect, and that the date mentioned on the package was not the expiry date, as it translated as “at least durable till”, meaning it was the “best before” date. The Commission relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Amrut Distilleries vs. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, in which the court had drawn a distinction between “best before” and “expiry” dates, and concluded that it was incorrect to conclude that the dates had expired.
The Commission expressed doubts about the credibility of the allegations, as spoilt and insect-infected dates would be expected to give off a foul odour or taste, but the complaint did not mention any such thing. The Commission observed that the procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act for laboratory testing was not followed. It also suggested that this could probably be because the original sample may have been substituted with an older and different one to obtain a favourable testing report.
Accordingly, the Bench comprising Justice A.P. Sahi and Bharatkumar Pandya passed an order on January 6, 2026, holding that the retail store could not be held liable. However, since the importer and supplier had not bothered to contest the complaint or appeal against the order, the Commission confirmed their liability.
The writer is a consumer activist
 "gavel law cases")