Telangana bakery sells ‘expired’ Diet Coke to customer, ordered to pay Rs 25,000

The commission was hearing a complaint filed by a man from Mulugu district, who purchased four Diet Coke cans from a bakery in 2025 but allegedly found one of them expired and unfit for consumption.

A bakery visit to consumer court

The man claimed that he purchased four Coca-Cola Diet Coke tins from the said bakery by paying Rs 160 on August 30, 2025. He added that for screening, he opened one tin and found that the date of manufacture of the product had expired on August 9, 2025 and was not fit for consumption.

He claimed that when he confronted the bakery owner about selling an expired product, instead of responding to his complaint, the owner allegedly offered him Rs 2,000 to suppress the matter, as other customers present in the shop had witnessed the incident.

Claiming that the incident caused him mental agony and exposed him to a potential health risk, the man issued a legal notice to the bakery, received no response, and also lodged a police complaint. When the dispute remained unresolved, he approached the commission seeking a refund and compensation. The complainant was represented by advocate Md Sarwar Ali.

‘Actual seller liable’

Clarifying that where the manufacturer is not the seller who supplies only raw products, not even a bank unit, nor a distributor, cannot be fastened with liability against it, the deficiency of service cannot be attributed against Coca-Cola Company, the commission stated.

Noting that the owner of the bakery and its employee, who are “actual sellers”, failed to appear and contest the case, the commission found them guilty of deficiency of service.

The commission found the owner and the employee of the said bakery to be jointly and severally liable to return the value of expiry product of four Diet Coke tins of Rs 160 to the complainant. They were further directed to pay Rs 10,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards costs.

The commission further directed them to pay Rs 10,00 to the Consumer Welfare Fund maintained by Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and dismissed the claim against the Coca-Cola company.

Coca-Cola’s defence

The Coca-Cola Company’s lawyer, advocate S Sunil, argued that the company was neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the beverage and merely permitted authorised bottlers, which are independent legal entities, to use its trademark for manufacturing, packaging and selling the products.

It was added that such authorised bottlers are not agents of the Coca-Cola Company or its subsidiaries and obtain independent Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) licenses and other permits for the manufacture of products sold under the trademarks by The Coca-Cola Company.

It was further submitted that these authorised bottlers deal with the manufacture, distribution and sale of these beverages in and throughout a geographical area authorised in the bottler’s agreement. The company claimed that it was in no way concerned in the process of manufacturing, sale or distribution of the beverages/bottle in question.

The lawyer further added that under Section 27 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the liability for sale of a life-expired food article is squarely based upon the seller.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Telangana: 1800-4250-0333) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.