Pune: Reliance Retail Kharadi Outlet Ordered To Pay ₹30,000 Compensation For Selling Expired And Overcharging A Product
Pune: Reliance Retail Kharadi Outlet Ordered To Pay ₹30,000 Compensation For Selling Expired And Overcharging A Product
Pune, July 16, 2026: The Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Reliance Retail Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices after it sold expired cheese and overcharged a customer for paneer and shampoo at its Reliance Smart outlet on Kharadi Bypass.
The Commission directed the company to refund the excess amount of ₹138, along with 8% annual interest, and pay ₹30,000 towards compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.
The order was passed by Commission President Anil Javalekar and Member Shubhangi Dunakhe in response to a complaint filed by Balasaheb Khodde, a resident of Kharadi. Advocate Anilkumar Jadhav represented the complainant.
According to the complaint, on January 16, 2022, the complainant’s children purchased a 400-gram cheese pack from the Reliance Smart outlet on Kharadi Bypass. After reaching home, they discovered that the product had already expired, with its use-by date having ended on December 10, 2021.
When the complainant questioned the store manager, he allegedly responded arrogantly, saying that Reliance was a very large brand and that no one could take action against the company, asking the customer to do whatever they wished.
The complaint further stated that on April 10, 2022, the complainant’s son purchased paneer from the same outlet and was charged ₹235 despite the printed Maximum Retail Price (MRP) being Rs 225, resulting in an excess charge of ₹10. Similarly, on June 14, 2022, he purchased a shampoo with an MRP of ₹305 but was billed ₹309, leading to an overcharge of ₹4.
The complainant approached the Consumer Commission, alleging unfair trade practices, sale of expired products, and overcharging beyond the printed MRP.
During the proceedings, Reliance Retail argued that the purchases had been made by the complainant’s children and not by the complainant himself, making the complaint non-maintainable. The company also claimed that the expired cheese was available in the market and alleged that the complainant had not produced the purchase receipt.
However, the Commission rejected these arguments, holding the company responsible for selling an expired food product and charging more than the printed price. It ruled that these actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, directing the company to compensate the consumer accordingly.
