Pet food supplier sold 166 near-expiry dog food bags, ordered to pay Rs 50,000

Holding that there was contributory negligence on both sides, the commission directed the food supplier to pay a lump sum of Rs 50,000 within three months.

Near-expiry product

According to the complaint, the complainant company maintained a farmhouse in Amritsar with 70-75 dogs, including German Shepherds, Cane Corsos and Old English Mastiffs.

It alleged that the complainant was induced by the representatives of the opposite party and lured through print and digital media advertisements to purchase dog food from them.

It was further stated that the opposite party was shown as a pioneer in the field of animal food and shall provide the best quality food for the dogs of the complainant.

On March 27, 2023, it placed an order for 200 bags of dog food. The complainant alleged that soon after the dogs consumed the food, several of them fell ill and one German Shepherd died on April 18, 2023.

It claimed that a veterinary doctor suspected improper food and advised checking the expiry dates, following which it discovered that 166 of the 200 bags were due to expire within less than a month.

The complainant sought refund of the purchase price along with Rs 20 lakh as compensation for the dog’s death, another Rs 20 lakh for mental agony and litigation costs.

The supplier denied any deficiency in service, contending that all products were within their shelf life at the time of sale and that selling near-expiry products was not prohibited.

It also argued that the complainant was aware of the expiry date and, of his own free will, bought 200 boxes of the product to avail the discount benefits.

The company further claimed that the food was meant for puppies but had been fed to adult dogs, which could have caused the illness.

‘Contributory negligence’

• Examining the invoices, the commission found that while 34 bags were due to expire on May 8, 2023, the remaining 166 bags carried an expiry date of April 12, 2023, giving them only about 15 days of shelf life from the date of purchase.
• Rejecting the supplier’s explanation that the complainant knowingly purchased the products to avail discounts, the commission observed that such a large quantity could not reasonably have been consumed within such a short period.
• The commission rejected the supplier’s objection that the complainant was not a consumer because it had purchased the goods in bulk for commercial purposes.
• “This Commission is of the view that it is not the quantity or the value of goods but the purpose for which the goods are to be used can determine whether it was meant for commercial purpose or not. In this case complainant had ordered dog food in bulk as he was having 70-75 dogs and it was not the intent of the complainant to purchase the dog food from OP and sell it further to earn profit out of it. Hence this contention of OP is ill founded,” it remarked.
• The commission declined to award compensation for the dog’s death, noting that the complainant had failed to produce documentary evidence establishing that the near-expiry food caused the illness or death.
• “Complainant’s contention that the dogs fell ill after consuming the near expiry date products and one of the dogs even died because of consuming the same has not been substantiated with any documentary evidence. Bald averments have no value in the eyes of law,” the order read.
• The commission found contributory negligence on the part of the complainant in not checking the dates of the dog food. It therefore directed the opposite party to pay Rs 50,000 to the complainant in lumpsum within three months.

Significance of this judgment

The ruling highlights that while the sale of products nearing their expiry date is not, by itself, unlawful, suppliers must act fairly when selling bulk quantities that cannot reasonably be consumed before expiry. At the same time, the Delhi Consumer Commission emphasised that buyers also have a duty to verify expiry dates before accepting bulk consignments. The decision illustrates the principle of contributory negligence, with the commission attributing responsibility to both parties while declining to award damages for the dog’s death in the absence of evidence.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi helpline: 011-28050114  ) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.