Selling ‘expired’ cosmetics costs seller Rs 15,000 after Kerala woman wins case

“An expired cosmetic product is not fit for sale. Consumers purchase cosmetic products with the legitimate expectation that they are safe, usable and within their shelf life. Selling an expired cosmetic product not only violates consumer rights but also exposes the consumer to possible health hazards,” the July 27 order read. 

Go, file case if you wish

The woman stated that she purchased a Yardley London English Blossom cosmetic product from the store on March 19, 2023, for Rs 175. However, after reaching home and opening the product, she claimed to have found that it had expired on December 12, 2022 — more than three months before the date of purchase.

She alleged that when she immediately approached the store and pointed out the defect, the store staff, instead of redressing the grievance, behaved rudely and arrogantly, asking her to “go and file a case if she wished.” It was further alleged that the bill issued by the store was printed in such poor quality that its contents gradually faded away. 

According to her, such practice was deliberately adopted to deprive consumers of documentary evidence in future disputes and amounts to an unfair trade practice. She also sent a legal notice but got no relief and moved the commission seeking a refund and compensation. 

‘Businesses should use durable, legible bills’

The commission noted that the entire evidence placed on record by the complainant has remained unchallenged since the store chose to remain absent throughout the proceedings. 

After physically examining the cosmetic product produced before it, the commission found that the expiry date printed on the container was December 12, 2022. “Therefore, on the date of sale, namely March 19, 2022, the product had already expired by more than three months,” it added. 

The commission also observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the woman’s claim that she was treated discourteously and asked to approach the court, as the store had chosen not to contest the proceedings.

Regarding the faded bill, the commission noted that although the bill had become faint over time, there was no independent evidence to prove that this was a deliberate or systematic unfair trade practice. However, it emphasised that businesses should issue “durable and legible bills” that consumers can preserve for a reasonable period.

While rejecting the woman’s claim for Rs 1 lakh as “excessive”, the commission observed that reasonable compensation should be awarded to “discourage” such irresponsible business practices and protect consumer rights.

Accordingly, the commission directed the store to refund the purchase price of Rs 175, pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and deficiency in service suffered by the complainant. 

The commission also directed the store to ensure that bills issued to consumers are clear, legible and capable of being preserved for a reasonable period while diercting it to pay Rs 5,000 towards the costs of the proceedings. 

Takeaway

This ruling highlights that retailers can be held liable for selling expired cosmetic products. It also reminds businesses to issue clear, durable and legible bills so that consumers can preserve them as proof of purchase if a dispute arises.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.  

You may also like to read:

Dry cleaner held liable for ‘stained’ silk saree despite disclaimer, consumer wins Rs 6,000

Man sold ‘insurance policy’ instead of FD from wife’s cancer fund, wins Rs 1.5 lakh

No licence or guards: Pool owner to pay Rs 52 lakh as boy drowns during ‘swimming lesson’