A Mohali consumer has been awarded ₹80,000 in compensation after discovering flies and insects inside a sealed bakery product she ordered online for ₹171.
The district consumer disputes redressal commission, Mohali, presided by SK Aggarwal, having Paramjeet Kaur and Lt Col JS Bath (retd) as its members, held the bakery guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The commission also directed the bakery to deposit ₹20,000 in the ‘PGI poor patient relief fund’, apart from paying compensation to the complainant.
The complainant, Sarpreet Kaur, had placed an online food order on September 8, 2025, through Zomato from Nik Baker’s, located at Jubilee Walk, Sector 70, Mohali.
The bill showed that she paid ₹171 for the order, which included atta bread, multigrain bread and atta suji rusk. On opening the sealed packet of atta suji rusk, she found flies and insects inside.
The issue was raised with the bakery through email on September 9, 2025.
The complainant argued that ensuring food safety, hygiene and quality is the responsibility of the manufacturer or seller. She submitted that the presence of insects in a sealed packet reflected negligence in manufacturing or packaging and amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Bakery argued fault could have occurred at delivery partner’s end
Nik Baker’s appeared before the commission through its assistant legal manager but failed to file its written statement within the statutory period of 45 days.
Consequently, its right to file a reply was struck off.
During arguments, the bakery claimed that its stock had been checked across outlets and suggested that the issue could have occurred during transit by the delivery partner.
The commission rejected this contention, observing that the product was delivered in a sealed condition and that insects could not have entered during the delivery process.
The bench also took note of email correspondence in which the bakery attempted to shift responsibility to the delivery platform instead of addressing the complaint.
The court relied on the bill, photographs, video recordings and the sealed packet produced before it.
As the bakery failed to rebut the evidence, the commission held that selling such a product amounted to negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Allowing the complaint partly, the commission directed the bakery to pay ₹80,000 to the complainant within 30 days, failing which the amount would attract interest at nine per cent per annum.
