HUL ordered to pay Rs 50,000 after customer receives 70g instead of 90g Surf Excel pouch

A consumer who discovered that a Surf Excel detergent pouch labelled as 90 grams weighed only 70 grams has won a six-year legal battle against Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL). The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that selling an underweight 70-gram pouch as a 90-gram product amounted to an unfair trade practice and directed HUL to pay the consumer Rs 50,000 in compensation and litigation costs, reported TOI.

How the dispute began

The case dates back to September 2020, when Gyan Chandra Garg, a resident of Ramnagar in Uttarakhand's Nainital district, purchased a case of Surf Excel EW detergent for Rs 512. According to the complaint, one of the pouches labelled as weighing 90 grams was found to weigh only 70 grams.


After issuing legal notices to HUL and the sellers, Garg approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Nainital, seeking Rs 1 lakh in compensation along with 18% annual interest, reported TOI.

HUL contested the complaint, arguing that the complainant had failed to establish his status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, had not provided batch or packaging details, and that the dispute fell under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, rather than consumer law.

The district commission rejected these arguments and ruled in favour of the complainant. It directed HUL to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses, and imposed a separate Rs 50,000 penalty on the company for unfair trade practices. It also asked the complainant to approach the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for further action, reported TOI.

HUL challenged the order before the state commission.

Why did the state commission rule against HUL?

The bench, comprising President Kumkum Rani and Member B.S. Manral, rejected HUL's contention that the district commission lacked jurisdiction because the matter was governed by the Legal Metrology Act. Referring to Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the bench said: "Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In view of this, it can not be said that the district commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint."

On the allegation of short weight, the commission noted that during the district commission proceedings, HUL's counsel was present when the sealed detergent pouch was weighed on an electronic kitchen scale and found to weigh only 70 grams. The company did not object to the process.

The bench observed: "There remains no room for doubt that the product sold to the complainant was less in weight/short weight and the complainant had duly discharged his burden/onus and has been able his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Thus, 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."

Compensation reduced, penalty set aside

While upholding the finding that HUL had engaged in an unfair trade practice, the state commission held that the compensation awarded by the district commission was excessive.

It observed: "In our considered opinion, the amount of Rs 50,000 awarded towards mental agony and financial loss is on the higher side and the same needs to be reduced to Rs 40,000. The litigation expenses of Rs 10,000 awarded by the district commission are perfectly justified."

The commission also set aside the Rs 50,000 penalty imposed on HUL and quashed the district commission's direction asking the complainant to approach the CCPA, describing the latter as "unwarranted."

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, with HUL directed to pay Rs 40,000 as compensation for mental agony and financial loss and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.