Found expired or contaminated food in your order? Your remedies under food safety law

What the law says

Two laws work in parallel, aimed at two different things. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 punishes those who make or sell unsafe food, while the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 gets you money back.

Everyone in the food business owes you a safety duty. Under Section 26 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, every food business operator, any restaurant, shop, packaged-food company, or delivery operator that runs the business, must ensure the food is safe, and none of them may manufacture, store, sell, or distribute food that is unsafe, misbranded, or sub-standard.

The punishment scales with the harm. Selling or distributing unsafe food is an offence under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Where it causes no injury, the punishment can reach three months' imprisonment and a fine up to three lakh rupees; a non-grievous injury raises it to a year; a grievous injury to six years; and where unsafe food causes death, the term runs from a minimum of seven years up to life, with a fine of not less than ten lakh rupees. Importantly, you do not have to show the seller intended any harm. The offence is one of strict liability, so the fact that the food was unsafe is what counts.

Liability is spread across the supply chain. Section 27 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 fixes who answers for what. A wholesaler or distributor is liable for supplying food after its expiry, and a seller is liable for selling expired food or keeping it in unhygienic conditions. That lets you pin the breach on the party who actually committed it, whether that is the restaurant that served it, the shop that sold it, or the company that packed it. One limit: liability falls only on an actual food business operator, so someone with no role in the business is not caught by the Act.

The food safety law is a complete code. The Supreme Court held in Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh that Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 gives it overriding effect, so food-adulteration offences are prosecuted under this Act rather than the general penal law. There is one practical catch worth knowing: these prosecutions are technical, with a mandatory fourteen-day timeline for the food analyst's report and a limitation period, and a lapse can sink the case, so it helps to push the food safety officer to act promptly.

The consumer law gives you the money remedy. Receiving expired, contaminated, or unsafe food fits squarely within a consumer "complaint" under Section 2(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which covers defective goods, goods that are hazardous to life and safety, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and product liability. Consumer commissions can award compensation and strike down unfair terms.

What you can do

1. Preserve the evidence first. Keep the food itself, sealed or refrigerated if you can, along with the packaging showing the expiry or batch details, the bill or order receipt, and clear photos. Note the restaurant, shop, or delivery platform and the date.
2. Complain to the food safety officer for your area under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. This can trigger an inspection, sampling of the food, and prosecution of the food business operator. Ask that the sample be sent for analysis promptly, because the analyst's report runs to a mandatory timeline.
3. Identify who is liable. Under Section 27 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, a seller answers for selling expired food or keeping it in unhygienic conditions, and a wholesaler or distributor for supplying expired food, so you can name the right party.
4. File a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission for a refund and compensation, because supplying expired or contaminated food is a defect, a deficiency in service, and can be an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Watch the limitation timelines.
5. If the food made you ill, keep the medical records and bills. Both the food safety punishment and any compensation scale with the severity of the injury, so the proof of harm matters.
6. Do not be put off by the idea that you must prove intent. Under the food safety law, selling unsafe food is an offence without any intent to harm, so what you need to show is that the food was unsafe.

Cases that matter

Ram Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court of India (2024). The Court held that Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 gives it overriding effect, so an offence of selling unsafe food under Section 59 displaces the general penal provisions on adulterated food, and there can be no simultaneous prosecution under both. It also clarified that Section 59 needs no proof of the intent required by the penal code, making the food safety framework both wider and stricter.

Aunestraja v. State of Tamil Nadu, High Court of Madras (2024). The court set out the layered liability under Section 27 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, holding that manufacturers, packers, wholesalers, distributors, and sellers each carry their own duties, that wholesalers and distributors are liable for supplying expired food, and that sellers are liable for selling expired products or holding them in unhygienic conditions. This is the provision that lets you target the right link in the chain.

Ranjitsinh H. N. Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra, High Court of Bombay (2024). The court quashed a food safety prosecution because the mandatory timelines were not met, including the fourteen-day limit for the food analyst's report and the statutory limitation period. It is a reminder that these prosecutions are technical, and that pressing the authorities to sample and report promptly protects the case.

Kolappan Thanu Achari v. R. Gunanithi, High Court of Madras (2025). Dealing with a consumer dispute, the court set out the broad definition of "deficiency" under the Consumer Protection Act, covering any fault, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality or performance of a service, while also underlining that the appeal limitation timelines are applied strictly. It shows both the reach of the consumer remedy and the need to act within time.