Woman found fungus and visible contamination in a Rs 230 butter pack bought from a retail store; Hyderabad consumer commission has now ordered Rs 2 lakh in damages and compensation, and referred the matter to FSSAI for action

NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Hyderabad has held a butter manufacturer and retailer guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a woman found fungus and other visible contamination in a packet of organic cooking butter she had purchased from a retail outlet. The commission found that improper storage conditions had led to contamination of the product.The commission, in its October 9, 2026, order, directed the retailer and manufacturer to jointly refund Rs 230, pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. It also imposed Rs 1 lakh as punitive damages, to be deposited in the consumer welfare fund, and referred the matter to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for necessary action.Fungus found in organic butter packAccording to the commission order, the complainant, Sandya Chavula, purchased a packet of Akshaya Kalpa Organic Cooking Butter for Rs 230 from a retail outlet in Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, on January 28, 2025. The product had been manufactured on December 21, 2024, and was due to expire on April 19, 2025.When she opened the packet at home, she found fungus and other visible contamination in the butter, making it unfit for consumption. She returned to the store and complained about the product. She alleged that the staff behaved and threatened her.The complainant also approached the manufacturer, which asked her to take up the issue with the retailer. She then sent a legal notice to the manufacturer and concerned authorities, including FSSAI and the National Dairy Development Board, on March 11, 2025.The manufacturer, in its reply dated March 17, 2025, attributed the problem to improper storage at the retail outlet. It said the temperature in the retailer's cold chain was 3-4 degrees above the recommended level and that the open chiller being used could not maintain the required temperature.What did the retailer and manufacturer say?The retailer contended that it had sold the product in the sealed condition in which it received it from the supplier. It said it had no role in the manufacture, packaging or marketing of the butter and denied responsibility for the alleged contamination.The manufacturer said its representatives and an expert committee had inspected the outlet, the product and its cold-storage facilities after receiving the complaint. It claimed that the inspection found that the storage temperature was not in line with the product's specifications and that the store staff were advised on the required precautions.It denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, arguing that the reports relied on by the complainant did not establish the condition of the product at the time of purchase.Commission's findingA bench comprising president Vakkanti Narasimha Rao and members P.V.T.R. Jawahar Babu and Suma Vala said the manufacturer's reply to the legal notice was significant because it pointed to shortcomings in the storage arrangements at the retail outlet.The commission noted that the manufacturer had itself stated that an open chiller could not maintain the recommended temperature and that the product needed to be stored in a closed chiller below 4 degrees Celsius. It had also suggested that the retailer use the manufacturer's closed chillers and train its staff in maintaining the cold chain.The commission said the manufacturer's reply showed that both parties had failed to take adequate preventive measures. While the retailer did not maintain the required storage temperature, the manufacturer failed to ensure that the storage conditions were suitable before placing the product for sale.It also referred to the manufacturer's butter analysis log book, which matched the batch number D19L07 and the manufacturing date of December 21, 2024, with the product sold to the complainant on January 28, 2025."The product sold to the complainant was contaminated and adulterated, which could be harmful if consumed without noticing the contamination," the commission noted.The commission held that selling the contaminated product amounted to an unfair trade practice. It also directed that the matter be referred to FSSAI under Section 90 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for appropriate action."The opposite parties have failed to take necessary precautions to ensure that the product is stored in proper conditions and is safe for consumption," it further added.Final orderThe commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to:Jointly and severally refund Rs 230 to the complainant.Pay Rs 50,000 each, totalling Rs 1 lakh, as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience.Pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.Deposit punitive damages of Rs 50,000 each, totalling Rs 1 lakh, into the consumer welfare fund maintained by the commission.Discontinue the unfair and restrictive trade practice under Section 39(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act.The commission also directed that the matter be referred to the deputy director of FSSAI's Hyderabad branch for necessary action under Section 90 of the Act.The directions have to be complied with within 45 days of receipt of the order.