LAW OF TORTS

I Year B.A./B.B.A., LL. B – Semester - I (2021-22)

2nd -Internal Assessment

SUBJECT: Law of Torts

TOPIC: CASE STUDY

NAME: Jaydeep Jadhav

DIVISION: A
PRN: 21010126092
COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2021-2026
 LAW OF TORTS

INTRODUCTION

The 2019 Act succeeded the older Consumer Protection Act, 1986, after receiving
presidential assent and being published in the Indian Official Gazette on August 9, 2019.
While the Act was approved in 2019, the bulk of its provisions entered into force on July 20,
2020, including the product liability section. The 2019 Act makes significant changes to the
previous law, as well as adding new parts, with the purpose of providing consumers with
greater and better protection. The inclusion of product liability under the 2019 Act signalled
the end of a buyer beware theory and the acceptance of seller beware as that of the new
Consumer Protection Act philosophy. In the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 ("2019 Act"),
the term "product liability" is defined for the first time. Product liability, according to the
2019 Act, refers to a product manufacturer's, sellers, or service provider's obligation to pay a
customer for any injury caused by a faulty product created or sold, or by a deficiency in
product-related services. The 2019 Act introduced a legal framework for product liability and
dedicated an entire chapter (Chapter VI) to defining when a 'defective' product manufactured
by a manufacturer, maintained by a product service provider, or sold by a product seller may
be sued for damages.

Illustration: - Product liability claims for breach of warranty might arise in the event that a
customer purchases a washing machine with an explicit guarantee of excellent working for 12
years, but the equipment malfunctions within 6 years of the purchase date. In this case the
consumer can sue the manufacturer for the warranty under Section 84 (d) of the Consumer
Protection act 2019.

Answer 1

Facts of the case:

 According to the facts of the case, Mr. Sherlock is a software professional from
Bangalore. He purchased a black DC electronics and technology Z laptop. On the 20th of
February 2019, he purchased this laptop for 35,000 rupees from Quality Systems, the
city's most popular retailer. Mr. Sherlock presented the laptop to one of his closest
friends, Ms. Barrymore.
 LAW OF TORTS

 Ms. Barrymore runs a consulting firm and started using the laptop for work. The laptop
came with a three-year warranty against manufacturing defects, however after just three
years, it was found to have a number of faults. Ms. Barrymore expressed her concerns to
both the manufacturer and the dealer, but neither responded. On February 7, 2022, the
laptop stopped working.
 Mr. Sherlock then sent letters to both the manufacturer and the seller, both of whom
ignored him. Mr. Sherlock's legal notice was also ignored. Ms. Barrymore has now
decided to file a consumer case against the Dealer and the manufacturer, claiming
damages of Rs. 2,25,000.

Advise to Ms. Barrymore: -

However, even though the laptop was made by DC electronics and technology, Mr. Sherlock
was not provided with any kind of guarantee on the device. Despite the fact that the laptop
had several production faults as a result of which Ms. Barrymore had to deal with several
issues, and later the laptop eventually stopped operating. As a result, Ms. Barrymore may
now file a product liability lawsuit against the maker, DC electronics and technology, as well
as the seller, Quality Systems, for failing to respond to her letters and selling her a faulty
device in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Ms. Barrymore may use Section
82 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer and
the seller. She is now authorised to seek compensation for the faulty laptop sold by Quality
Systems and manufactured by DC electronics and technology. According to the Consumer
Protection Act 2019, Ms. Barrymore can file a consumer action under the product liability
provision, which was just implemented. In accordance with Section 83 of the Consumer
Protection Act 2019, Ms. Barrymore may file a lawsuit against the manufacturer (DC
electronics and technology) and supplier (Quality Systems).

An action for product liability may be brought by a complainant against a product

manufacturer, a product service provider, and or a product seller for any harm that has been
caused by a defective product. According to Section 83 of the Consumer Protection Act, an
action for product liability can be brought against any of these parties. As a result, Ms.
Barrymore may file a lawsuit against both the manufacturer as well as the seller. Ms.
Barrymore will be able to readily demonstrate that her attempts to contact the seller and the
manufacturer were useless since she received no response from either party. She may even
claim that if they had replied in a timely manner, her laptop would have been fixed on time,
 LAW OF TORTS

and she would not have had to deal with as many problems if the issues had been properly
addressed. So, using Section 83 of the Consumer Protection Act she can sue them.

The manufacturer, DC electronics and technology, was at blame because it built and
marketed faulty laptops, despite the fact that it was their job to ensure that the laptops were in
perfect working order before shipping them out. They didn't take their responsibilities
seriously, and they didn't even bother to react to the letters that Ms. Barrymore had written to
their offices. They even failed to respond to the legal notice provided by Mr. Sherlock,
indicating that the company is at fault and would be required to defend the consumer lawsuit.

The term 'product manufacturer' is defined extensively in Section 2(36) of the 2019 Act, and
includes all parties participating in the selling process. A 'product manufacturer,' according to
the 2019 Act, is someone who:

a) manufactures or assembles products or parts thereof;

b) places or causes to be placed his own mark on products made by others;
c) sells, distributes, leases, instals, packages, labels, markets, repairs, maintains, or
otherwise engages in placing products for commercial purposes.

Under Section 84 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, Ms. Barrymore has the right
to sue the Manufacturer DC electronics and technology. According to Section 84 (a) A
product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if— (a) the product
contains a manufacturing defect. It's possible that the hazard comes from bad design and
unfulfilled user expectations. She can file a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the goods
since she was using a defective product that may have caused her injury.

The customer also has a right of action against the product seller. Section 86 of the Act
specifies them. Any person who, in the course of business, imports, sells, distributes, leases,
instals, prepares, packages, labels, markets, repairs, maintains, or otherwise is involved in
placing such product for commercial purposes is defined as a product seller under the 2019
Act, which includes (a) a manufacturer who is also a product seller; or (b) a service provider.
Under section 86 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, Ms. Barrymore has the right to
sue the product seller. Ms. Barrymore might make a complaint under section 86 clause (c) of
the Consumer Protection Act 2019 in this circumstance.

Section 86 (c) states that —A product seller who is not a product manufacturer shall be
liable
 LAW OF TORTS

in a product liability action, if (c) he has made an express warranty of a product independent
of any express warranty made by a manufacturer and such product failed to conform to the
express warranty made by the product seller which caused the harm. Because the product
seller promised the consumer a three-year warranty and failed to deliver on that promise, he
may be held liable under section 86 (c). And he must pay the compensation to Ms. Barrymore
since she encountered troubles as a result of the product seller's false commitment.

With reference to the case Donoghue v. Stevenson, where the customer found a dead snail in
a metal-capped ginger bear bottle, both the product manufacturer and the seller were held
liable. The seller was found accountable for carelessly selling the goods to the customer,
while the manufacturer was held liable for defective product. Similarly, the laptop maker and
seller are both accountable for their mistakes, and Ms. Barrymore may sue both and seek
compensation for the injury she has suffered under the sections outlined above.