The Thanjavur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has slapped fine on an aerated drink manufacturing company and a retailer who sold the product for deficiency in service.

According to the TDCDRC’s order, dictated by the commission’s president, T.Sekar, and member, K.Velumani, the consumer P.Karthikeyan of Melaveedhi, Thanjavur, bought an aerated soda drink from A.Adaikalam running a kiosk on Melaveedhi on August 18, 2025 by paying ₹10 through his son and the drink was consumed by his wife.

On consuming the drink, the complainant’s wife suffered food contamination ailments. When Sekar went through the manufacturing and expiry dates printed on the product container, he found the product expiry date was May 2025.

Subsequently, he took his wife, working as a teacher, to the Government Rajah Mirasdar Hospital for treatment to food poisoning. She abstained from her for two days due to the ill-health. When the petitioner approached the retailer and questioned about the sale of expired drink, Adaikalam replied that he could not be held responsible for the development as he had sold the product received from the manufacturer.

Thus, Karthikeyan preferred a complaint against Adaikalam, the retailer, and the aerated drinks manufacturer – the Gold Cup Aerated Water Works, Vallam North Sethi, on the outskirts of Thanjavur town seeking ₹1 lakh, each, for the mental agony suffered by the family and the ill-health suffered by his wife and ₹3 lakh for deficiency in service on the part of the manufacture and the retailer.

After going through the submissions of the manufacturer and retailer, the commission concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of both the manufacturer and the retailer citing earlier orders on similar issues dealt with by the National and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions and by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the ‘maza’ drink case.

The commissioner levied a fine of ₹3,000 for unethical trade practice along with costs of ₹5,000 and ₹10 paid by the petitioner for purchasing the drink.

The respondents – the manufacturer and the retailer – were directed to pay the amounts to the petitioner either jointly or individually to the petitioner within four weeks, failing which they should pay the amount to the petitioner with 12% interest.

Published - July 21, 2026 08:27 pm IST