6-year old case for 3 missing biscuits ends in rejection

6-year old case for 3 missing biscuits  ends in rejection

Vishal.Patadiya@timesofindia.com 03.07.2025

Surat : When was the last time you counted the number of biscuits in a packet bought from ashop or supermarket? A man in Surat not only counted, but fought nearly six years for compensation of Rs 54 for three missing orange cream-filled delights from a pack of 12. 

His pursuit ended in failure, as the consumer court ruled that he did not qualify as a ‘consumer’ under the legal definition. The saga began on Aug 11, 2019, when Darshan Shethiya bought groceries, eatables, and other items from a wholesale store in the Althan area. After paying Rs 647, he discovered that three biscuits were missing from a Rs 54 packet of 12. 

He returned to the counter and demanded a replacement. The staff declined, stating their policy did not allow exchanges after billing. Shethiya then called the manager, who claimed that packaging was the manufacturer’s responsibility and that the store could not help. The matter escalated into a heated argument, prompting police intervention. 

The police advised the manager to compensate Shethiya to avoid unnecessary escalation over a minor sum. The manager initially agreed, but once the police left, he refused to resolve the matter. Shethiya approached the consumer court in 2019. During the proceedings, the store’s lawyer argued that the store catered exclusively to wholesale clients buying goods for commercial resale. Therefore, Shethiya did not qualify as a consumer. 

Shethiya’s counsel countered that the items, including the biscuit packet, were meant for personal use, as shown by the nature of the purchase and the total bill. After hearing both sides, the court recently ruled: “The complainant submitted that he was neither given a replacement packet worth Rs 54, nor reimbursed Rs 13.50 for the three missing biscuits. However, before addressing that claim, it must be determined whether Shethiya is a consumer. 

The bill suggests the sale was for commercial purposes, with no supporting evidence 

to establish personal use. Hence, the complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer and is not entitled to relief under the Consumer Protection Act.”