The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II in Jaipur, Rajasthan, has held PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. liable in a consumer complaint over a ₹5 packet of Lay’s chips that allegedly contained only 4 grams against the 15 grams declared on its packaging. In an order dated September 17, 2026, the commission directed the company to pay ₹5,000 for mental harassment and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs, besides refunding the purchase price with 6% annual interest. The complaint against retailer Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed. The case highlights the importance of accurate product labelling and consumer accountability.
From A Family Purchase To A Consumer Complaint
According to the complaint, Chandraman Jalan, proprietor of Jalan Building and Hardware Store, purchased several food items from Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt. Ltd. on November 10, 2020, to serve guests at his residence. The purchase included a packet of Lay’s potato chips manufactured by PepsiCo, for which an invoice was issued.
Jalan alleged that while serving the chips, he noticed that the packet felt unusually light. On weighing its contents, he claimed to have found only 4 grams of chips, despite the packaging declaring a net weight of 15 grams. He subsequently approached the retailer over the alleged shortage but claimed that his grievance was not adequately addressed.
The consumer then filed a complaint before the commission on April 6, 2022, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The dispute eventually placed the quantity declared on a low-cost packaged product at the centre of a consumer rights case.
Why The Commission Held PepsiCo Liable
The commission, comprising President Ashok Sharma and members Ajay Kumar and Supriya Agarwal, examined the purchase invoice, the complainant’s evidence and the submissions made in the proceedings.
Metro Cash & Carry contested the complaint, arguing that any shortage in the quantity of chips could have occurred during manufacturing or packaging and that responsibility lay with the manufacturer. PepsiCo, despite being served notice, did not appear before the commission, and proceedings against the company continued ex parte, meaning in its absence.
The commission dismissed the complaint against Metro Cash & Carry, noting that the retailer had sold the product against an invoice and that the alleged shortfall in the packaged product fell within the manufacturer’s responsibility. It allowed the complaint against PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
The commission also made strong observations about the implications of selling products with less content than declared. As reported by The Indian Express, the order stated that supplying goods of lesser weight could amount to a “serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice”. The observation underlined the importance of ensuring that the quantity printed on packaging corresponds with the product supplied to consumers.
What PepsiCo Has Been Ordered To Pay
Under the September 17 order, PepsiCo must refund the ₹5 purchase price with interest at 6% per annum from April 6, 2022, the date the complaint was filed, until payment. The company must also pay ₹5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs, taking these two amounts to ₹8,000.
The commission directed the company to make the payment within one month of the order. If it fails to pay the ₹8,000 within the stipulated period, the amount will attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
The compensation is significantly higher than the price of the packet itself, reflecting the commission’s assessment of the consumer’s grievance and the costs associated with pursuing the case. However, the order concerns this specific complaint and should not be interpreted as an automatic compensation rule for every underweight product.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Consumers should be able to trust the quantity, price and other details declared on products they purchase, regardless of how inexpensive those products are. Even a small discrepancy can undermine that trust, particularly when customers have limited means to challenge manufacturers or retailers individually. At the same time, complaints must be assessed on evidence, and businesses should have a fair opportunity to respond.
This case reinforces the importance of transparent packaging, effective grievance redressal and accountability across the supply chain. When consumers encounter a product that does not match its label, what steps should companies take to resolve the complaint fairly and restore public trust?
Also Read: Magnitude 5.1 Earthquake Strikes Near Andaman And Nicobar Islands, No Casualties Reported
