Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds Mosaic Wellness, Amazon Liable for Sale of Expired Consumable Product

February 27, 2026 : The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur has held Mosaic Wellness Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. jointly liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling an expired consumable product through an e-commerce platform.

The order, delivered on February 27, 2026, by a Bench comprising President C.T. Sabu and Members Sreeja S. and Ram Mohan R., arose from a complaint filed by an IT professional who purchased “hair gummies” for ₹799 on March 14, 2024. The product was delivered on March 17, 2024.

According to the complainant, he consumed the gummies for six consecutive days and subsequently experienced stomach pain, vomiting, and dizziness. Upon inspecting the packaging, he discovered that the product had an expiry date of February 2024, indicating that it was already expired at the time of sale and delivery.

The complainant approached the e-commerce platform seeking a refund on March 23, 2024. However, the request was rejected on the ground that the product was “non-returnable” and outside the return window.

Both opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission despite service of notice, and the matter proceeded ex-parte. The Commission relied on documentary evidence, including the invoice dated March 14, 2024, delivery records, and the product packaging, which clearly indicated an expiry date of February 2024.

The Commission held that selling a product meant for human consumption after its expiry date squarely falls within “unfair trade practice” under Section 2(47)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It observed that expiry dates are intended to ensure safety and quality, and selling such products defeats that purpose and exposes consumers to potential harm.

Addressing the role of the e-commerce platform, the Commission rejected its reliance on return policies. It clarified that contractual return restrictions cannot override statutory obligations, particularly where goods are defective or unsafe. The Commission found that the platform failed to provide an effective grievance redressal mechanism as required under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, and improperly refused to process the refund.

It further noted that Rule 6(3) of the E-commerce Rules obligates sellers not to refuse returns or refunds where goods are defective, deficient, or not as advertised. The platform’s refusal to intervene or resolve the complaint was held to be a violation of these obligations and indicative of an inadequate grievance mechanism.

On compensation, while the complainant alleged physical ailments, the Commission found no sufficient medical evidence to substantiate those claims. However, it accepted that the complainant suffered mental agony, hardship, and financial loss, observing that consumption of an expired product could reasonably cause anxiety regarding health consequences.

Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed both opposite parties to jointly and severally pay:

• ₹799 towards refund of the purchase price
• ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony and hardship
• ₹5,000 towards litigation costs

The amounts are to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation, with compliance required within 45 days.

Cause Title: Ugeesh Kumar K.U. v. Mosaic Wellness Pvt. Ltd. & Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC 241/24