Full Breakdown
Hyderabad Consumer Commission Orders Refund and Damages over Contaminated Organic Butter
By Drooid · · How we work
In this breakdown
01
Core Event
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II in Hyderabad partially allowed a complaint by Sandya Chavula after she found visible fungus in a packet of Akshaya Kalpa Organic Cooking Butter bought for Rs 230. The order dated October 9 2026 directed the retailer and manufacturer to jointly refund the purchase price, pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation, Rs 10,000 toward litigation costs, and deposit an additional Rs 1 lakh as punitive damages into the consumer-welfare fund. The matter was referred to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for further action.
02
Background & Context
The butter pack, manufactured on December 21 2024 with an expiry of April 19 2025, is marketed as “organic cooking butter.” The commission found that improper storage at the retail outlet caused the contamination, rendering the butter unsafe.
Visual evidence
Images from the story
03
Timeline
Swipe across the table to see all columns.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dec 21 2024 | Manufacturing date (batch D19L07). |
| Jan 28 2025 | Purchase in Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. |
| Mar 11 2025 | Legal notice sent to manufacturer, FSSAI, and NDDB. |
| Mar 17 2025 | Manufacturer replied, attributing the problem to retailer storage. |
| Oct 9 2026 | Commission issued final order and referred case to FSSAI. |
04
Data & Statistics
- Purchase price: Rs 230.
- Compensation for mental agony: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 50,000 each).
- Punitive damages: Rs 1 lakh (Rs 50,000 each) to the consumer-welfare fund.
- Litigation-cost award: Rs 10,000.
- Storage temperature cited: 3–4 °C above the recommended <= 4 °C.
05
Official Statements & Responses
- Manufacturer (Mar 17 2025): Said the retailer’s cold-chain temperature was 3–4 °C higher than specified and recommended closed chillers and staff training.
- Retailer: Stated the product was sold sealed as received, denied involvement in manufacturing or packaging, and rejected responsibility.
- Commission: Noted the manufacturer’s admission implicated both parties and concluded the retailer failed to maintain required temperature while the manufacturer did not ensure proper storage before sale.
06
Why It Matters
The case highlights the importance of cold-chain management for perishable, especially organic, foods. By invoking Section 39(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and referring the matter to FSSAI under Section 90, the commission demonstrates regulatory pathways for food-safety violations and reinforces consumer-rights enforcement in India’s retail food sector.
07
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The manufacturer argued the complainant’s evidence did not prove the product’s condition at purchase.
- The commission found the manufacturer’s own temperature-control admission sufficient to show a lapse.
- No independent laboratory test results confirming fungus were cited, leaving a gap in the evidentiary record.
08
What’s Next
The retailer and manufacturer must comply with the monetary awards within 45 days of the order. The case has been referred to the deputy director of FSSAI’s Hyderabad branch for action under Section 90 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Further regulatory scrutiny may lead to additional enforcement measures on storage standards for dairy products.