10 CHAPTER-IL CONCEPT OF CONSUMERISM AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In this chapter the attention is focused on the concept of Consumerism, Evolution of Consumerism, Consumer and Consumer Protection, Social Significance of Consumerism and its impact on society and vice versa. The subject of Consumer protection has gained a very vital concern and importance in the present day economic and social scenario. This is a subject of concern for every citizen of a country, In fact, each citizen is a consumer in one form or the other. The Consumers are in truth the pillars of every economy as they alone form the roots of trade, commerce and industry, However, effective and qualitative a product may be, without the consumer the industry has to go into bankruptcy which consequently results into social and economic disaster. Social and economic disaster ultimately result in ‘anarchy’. Thus, ‘Consumer’ is the foundation for an economy.aa Many Constitutions including the Constitution of India enumerated fundamental rights for the citizens. But these rights could not help a Consumer to safeguard himself from unscrupulous traders and manufacturers. He is subject to many ordeals like high pricing, low quality, wrong quantity, adulteration, cheating etc. This oppression against consumer led to the emergence ©f consumer movement. The last two decades have witnessed an over-expanding interest in consumerism. @ wave of awakening and an upsurge of enthusiasm for the rights of consumers was witnessed in the last decades. The various scientific and technological, developments have = brought = about_—s perceptible socio-economic changes. In addition, the Researcher feels that sustained lobbying by prominent Consumer groups like Common Cause (Delhi), Consumer Education Research Centre Ahmedabad and Consumer Guidance Society of India (Bombay), have Played dominant role in getting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, enacted. Besides this the Consumer Organisations, Voluntary Business Associations like the Council for Fair Business Practices (Bombay), have also played significant role in getting the said Act passed by the Parliament.12 THE CONSUMER MOVEMENT IN INDIA: In India, the earliest Consumer Organisation to be set up was the Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSO1) in Bombay, in 1965. The steep increase in the Consumer price index in 1973 was responsible for the birth of over 100 Consumer Organisation in the Country. Today we have more than 450 Consumer Organisation in India. The Andhra Pradesh itself have about 200 organisation. India tops in having number of consumer Organisations in the World and Andhra Pradesh tops in the Country. The early years saw Consumer Organisations being concerned primarily with prices and with choosing between different goods. But in these years this movement has grown in many areas and taken on a new dimension. In the eyes of the Government, too, it has emerged from being a tolerable public nuisance to a Popular legitimate activity for legislation and governmental action.13 Today, Consumer Organisations are looking to consumer problems as problems concerning the conscience, as problems concerning social Justice, as problems concerning human rights, as problems concerning survival. What are those” rights consumers organisations address themselves to? Firstly, the right to safety, to be protected from hazardous goods. Secondly, the right to information, the right not to be mislead by lack of information or misinformation. Thirdly, the right to fair prices and choice, to have access to a variety of products and services, and where monopoly prevails a minimum guaranteed quality at reasonable prices. Fourthly, the right to representation, to be consulted and to be involved in decisions affecting the consumer. Fifthly, the right to redress, to have access to a complaint machinery and fair and speedy compensation procedures. Sixthly, the right to consumer education and Seventhly, that is of increasing concern, the right to a healthy and safety environment. The above developments can be traced back in the year 1920, where Consumer groups emerged in United States and Scandinavia and spreadover to the rest of the Europe. Housewive’s organisations, Labour Unions,14 Cooperatives, University groups all begins to involve themselves in this new area of social concern, In the year 1962, 15th March, President Kennedy of United States made it clear for effective and comprehensive measure to protect Consumers, He declared the four essential Consumer’s Rights which are as follows: a) Right to Choose. b) Right to be Heard, c) Right to Safety, d) Right to Information. CAVEAT EMPTOR: The doctrine of ‘Caveat Emptor’ postulates that the buyer must be aware of the goods, The general rule of the Common Law in regard to quality or fitness under a contract of sale except in cases of fraud; the buyer Purchases goods at his own risk, unless there is a condition of warranty. Thus, if ‘a’ sells a horse to ‘B’ and it turns out that the horse is bad, at the time of sale, a defect of which ‘A’ was not aware, ‘A’ is not responsible for the same unless until the allegation is of fraud.15 Section-16 of the Sale of Goods Act enumerates the rule Caveat Emptor and the exceptions to it. It Provided that subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied, however, subject to the following exceptions. 1) Where buyer expressly or impliedly makes known the Seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required and relies on seller’s skill or judgment, there is an implied condition that goods shall be fit for the purpose. 2) Where goods are bought by description, there is an implied condition that goods shall be of mercantile quality, for example: ‘a’ goes to Chemists and ask for a hot water bottle. He is shown a bottle which Chemist says meant for hot water. On purchase and use of it, after a few days it burst and injures ‘a’. ‘A’ is entitled for damages for the breach of implied condition. + Ci] Priest Vs. Last (1903) 2 K.V. 14816 In Moreui V/s Fitch, ‘Mm’ asked for a bottle of Stone’s ginger wine at the shop of ‘F’ which was licensed for the sale of wines. While ‘M’ was opening the cork, the bottle broke/burst and ‘Mm’ was injured. It was held that the sale was one by description and also the bottle was not of mercantile quality. Therefore, ‘mM’ was entitled to damages, As observed above, if a buyer has examined the goods there is no implied condition as regard to the defects which such examination ought to have revealed. However, the law of Caveat Emptor seems to have outdated in view of the protection given to a consumer, as Provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Now, no breach of Contract or of condition of a warranty is required to be proved, nor the buyer is supposed to be aware of the nature, quality and quantity of goods. The manufacturer or seller of goods and the rendering services are liable strictly by way of strict liability as has been evolved under the act. [1] (1928) 2 K.B. 636 [2] Thoveet Vs. Beers (1919) K.8. 48517 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 makes such an arrangement where a Consumer is entitled to contain reliefs irrespective of the factum of breach of Contract, condition or warranty in the case of any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained under the law. LAW _OF CONSUMER PROTECTION AS A TORT: Comparative Study: We may define tort as a Civil wrong (other than Criminal) which is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages, which is other than a mere breach of Contract or breach of trust. Thus the following Points emerge out of above definition: 1) Tort is a Civil wrong and not a Criminal. 2) It is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages. 3) The wrong is other than breach of Contract or breach of trust. [1] See Section 2(1)(9) & (5) of the act18 ‘ORT _AND_ CONS! Originally, there was no distinction between different kinds of wrongs and no compartmentalisation like Criminal wrong, Civil wrong, breach of Contract breach of trust etc. for various rights popularly known as rights of trespass used or to be used. The general law therefore, was that when there is no remedy there is no right. If the remedy was available the existence of right was recognised. This emphasis on Procedural aspects continued for at least five centuries together. It was in the 19th Century when laws started to have change and ultimately, it was Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, which abolished rights. Now it was not mere necessary to have a remedy first by way of right, and then to get a right recognised. Judicature Act, 1873, required that a pleading should contain only summary of material facts. The law has taken turn and now the position is that whenever there is right, there is remedy. The law of torts is mainly the product of judicial decision. With the passage of time, with more decisions of Courts of law, new torts also seems to have been emerged. It is not necessary that a tort19 should be backed by a legislation and therefore, whenever it is presumed on the basis of Natural Law, Natural Justice, Fair Play, Equality etc., the tort arises. However, some of the examples of Judicial activist adding more to the law of torts are the Fatal Accidents Act (1846, 1959 and 1976), the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1897, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (1934 and 1971), Law Reform (Married Women and Tort Feasures Act of 1935), Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, Crown Proceedings Act 1949, Defamation Act 1952, Law Reforms (Husband) or (Wife) Act 1962, Congenital Disabilities (civil Disability) Act 1976, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Civil Liability Contribution act 1978, and Consumer Safety Act 1978. The level of awareness in England which gave rise to the lobbying of Consumers and the enactment of Consumer Protection act, 1987, can be seen from some successful action brought when a person was prevented from crossing over the bridge for sometimel or a Person was refused permission to come out of a war without paying nominal exist charges* or a person was [1] Bird V/s Jones : 1845 7 0.8. 742 [2] Robson V/s Balmain, New Ferry Co. (1910) @.C.295)20° locked inside a public lavatory for a short duration due to defective door handiet or a person suffered skin 2 or the work in disease due to defect in the underwear: the plaintiff’s factory was stopped for seven hours due to failure of electric supply? or the decomposed body of a snail found in a bottle of drink or there was a depression of the plaintiff during interrogation in the 4 theft case+ or a person, who without the authority of the owner of the premises had fixed up a ladder against the wall, was thrown down the ladder. Consumer Protection Act 1987 apart in U.K. there is a plethora of legislations which meant for the Protection of interest of Cofisumers. Some of them are fair Trading Act 1973, the Competition Act, 1980, Consumer Safety Act 1978, Consumer Credit Act 1974, Price Commission Act 1977 together with Amendment act [1] Sayseros V/s Harlow Urban District Council (1858)2A 2 All ER 342.) [2] Grant V/s Australian Knitting Mills Co. (1936) A.C. 85), [3] Scm (UK) Ltd. V/s W.J. Whittal & Cons. (1971) 108 337) [4] Donoghue V/s Stevenson (1932) A.C. 562) [5S] John Lewis & Co. V/s Times (1952) All E. R. 1203 Merring V/s Graham White Aviation Co. (1919) 122 L.T. 44).Ex 1979, Unfair Contract Terms Act-1977, Weights and Measures Act, 1963, 1976 and 1979, Supply of Goods (implied Terms) Act 1973, Food and Drugs Act, 1955, Poisons Act 1972; Trade Description Act 1968 and 1972 etc. Under the Consumer Protection act 1987, such an arrangement is made, where the tort committed by any Person in relation to Consumer is liable Civilly but also criminally like Indian Act on Consumer Protection. + The Act of U.K. is basically divided into 4 parts. First three of which defines the Rights of Consumers and Liabilities and person doing wrong against them. In the Fourth part an arrangement for the enforcement of first three parts have been made. [i] collins V/s Revision (1754)Say-138).22 1)Part-. PRODUCT LIABILITY: It provides for the strict liability to be inflicted upon the producers or manufacturer in respect of any damages caused by the defective products. However, the following six defences have been given against the defective product namely: a) The person proceeded against did not supply the Product. b) The defect is attributable to the requirement of any law or any community obligation. c) The defect did not exist at the relevant time. d) The state of scientific and technical knowledge was not upto that level at the relevant time. e) That the defects: i) Constituted a defect in a product (subsequent Product) in which the product in question had been comprised; and ii) Was wholly attributable to the design of the Subsequent product or to compliance by the Producer of product in question with instructions given by the producers of subsequent product.23 2)Part-I1:_UNSAFE GOODS: This part enlists general duty on manufacturer, supplier of goods to ensure that the goods supplied are safe.? 3) Part-Illt MISLEADING PRICE INDICATIONS: This part makes an Offence when the Price indicated in respect of any goods, _ service, accommodation or facilities are misleading. * Product liability is liability for personal inJury or property damages caused by a defective product or defect in product design: The Product liability concept looks to defective and dangerous END EFFECT of the product rather than to method or processes used in producing the goods. This represents a shift from looking to the conduct of manufacturer to the performance of his product. The manufacturer can not raise defence of due care and Precaution while producing the goods. The manufacturer is liable to users of a product not reasonably safe to the unreasonable risks. Shri Dean Wade has observed: [i] Indian Consumer Protection Act-1986 [2] See Section 10 of Consumer Protection Act, 1987(UK)24 "In essence, strict liability in this sense is not different from negligence per se, selling a dangerous unsafe product is equivalent of negligence regardless of the defendant’s conduct in letting it become unsafe... selling a dangerously unsafe chattel is negligence within itse1f”.+ a) A manufacturer of supplier is engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling, selling, leasing or otherwise distributing such product. b) The product was supplied by him in a defective condition which rendered it unreasonably dangerous, and c) The defective condition was a proximate cause of the harm to person or to property. RATIONALE OF THIS PRINCIPLE: Product liability claim sound more in tort rather in Contract. It is applicable to sale rather than to service. It is based on nature of product and the Consumer’s reasonable expectation and utility of Product rather than on the conduct, either of [1] (Dean Wade: Strict Liability of Manufacturer : 19, WLI, 5.14 (1965)25 manufacturer or the person injured. The Seller by marketing his product for use and consumption has undertaken and assumed a special responsibility towards the member of the consuming public who may be ingured by it. The consumer relies upon the skill of the Producer that the goods are safe for its intended Purposes. The consumer can not have any knowledge of the manufacturing process nor he had any control over the product or process. The Consumer relies on the skill, knowledge and experience of the producers of the goods. The consumer can not observe and find out the latent defects in the Product. The consumer relies upon the reputation of the producer for quality and workability or utility of the product. The consumer should not be put to any harm or injury due to use of defective product. The manufacturers should be made the insurers for all Physical injuries caused by their products. The public policy demands that the manufacturer or seller of the Product should be held responsible for any harm or injury caused to the consumer due to the defective Product structurally or functionally. The manufacturer should treat compensation as a part of cost of Production or he may take out an insurance cover to safeguard from such liability.26 PRODUCT LIABILITY IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: The goal of product liability is to compensate the injured party. It is based on concept of strict liability, mot on fault liability. In the United States, strict tort liability provides a basis for recovery which does not require an injured consumer to prove fault or intent on the part of the maker or distributor of a defective product. The Law of Tort in India is not as developed as it is in United Kingdom or United States. According to B.M. Gandhi,+ during the period from 1914 to 1965 only 613 tort cases have come up before the Appellate Cour ts. The damages awarded in these cases are no comparison to those awarded in the Courts of United States. About Ten million dollars were paid by American Insurance Companies in 1985 in Tort cases. Inspite of the above fact, the Law of Tort in India is slowly = picking up. Because of Industrialisation, cases of injury as a result of defective manufacture of products are rapidly [i] 8. M. Gandhi, Law of Torts XL -1V 1990 [2] George J. Church et. al "Sorry, your Policy is cancelled”, Time MARCH 24/1986.27 increasing. It is hoped that with the better awareness of their rights by consumers and easy accessibility to Consumer Disputes Redressal. agencies, tort cases will increase in India also. Tort law is one of the few branches of Law which has not been codified in India. But its validity has been assured by virtue of Article-372 of the Constitution of India. According to Law of Torts, duties are imposed on People generally to take care with a view to prevent some injury or harm taking place to person or property of others. The standard for this duty of care is that of reasonable man, i.e, an average man with common sense. Persons with superior skills such as Doctors, Engineers, Architects and Lawyers are supposed to maintain professional standard and the degree of care in their cases would correspondingly be greater. In cases of manufacturer of products which are to be marketed, the degree of care to be taken will vary according to the risk which the producer will pose to the consumer. In case of hazardous Products the manufacturer would be required to take a high degree of care, It is also laid down that, simply duty to take care is not enough but it is also necessary to show28 that the duty was owed to the plaintiff. If there is no duty owed to the plaintiff the action must fai1.? It has been held that, negligence was a matter of relation between the parties which must be founded upon foreseeablity of harm to person in fact, injured.? The test of forcebility was affirmed in the famous case of Donghue Vs Stevenson. > In India also, the test is applied in Rural Transport Service Vs Bezlum Bibi,* where the conductor of public bus invited passengers to sit on the roof when the bus was over loaded. On it, a passenger was struck by the branch of a tree when the bus was overtaking a Cart. As a result of this, the Passenger received serious injuries and later died. The Court held that the defendant was liable. CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY FOR PRODUCTS: Under the law of Contract, the product liability depends upon two aspects: (1) the privacy of Contract and (2) Breach of warranty. [i] Bourhill Vs Young (1942) AIl. E, R. 396 [2] Palsgraph Vs Losng Island R.R. (1928) 162 No. 299. (3] (1932) a.c. 562 [4] AIR (1980), Cal. 16529 Privacy of Contract means the direct relationship existing between two parties to a Contract. Under this doctrine of privacy of Contract, manufacturer is Protected from liability in cases where he has not supplied the product directly to the consumer. In such cases, the retailer who has nothing to do with the Process of manufacture is made to suffer by effecting repairs, replacement or payment of damages. Another disadvantage of this doctrine is that if the buyer has Passed on the product to some one else and the latter suffers loss or injury due to defect in the good, no contractual action will lie for want of privacy of contract. However, under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, a remedy has been provided to such a user of the product. + Warranties under the law of Contract generally relate to performance of the product so that in the case of defect a Provision is made for repair or replacement of the defective product. It has been the Practice in the past, such warranties are given to Consumers if he accepts that, he would not hold the [i] Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act -1986.30 manufacturer liable for injury or loss due to defect in the product. Generally, Consumer would accept this since he would be more interested in getting the Product replaced rather than making the manufacturer liable. Lord Denning in Adams Vs Richardson and Sterling Ltd. has observed about such guarantees. "The guarantee gives him no more than the law would have done any way. More often, not it cuts down the liability of the supplier. If the thing goes wrong, the supplier will not pay for the loss or damages which the customer sustains. He will only replace the defective part free of the charge within two years, three years, or five years, as the case may be. It is to my mind quite wrong that customers should be hook winked in this way”. In United Kingdom, such clauses are made void by the Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977. In India also, under the Consumer Protection act, 1986, a Consumer has a right to claim damages under Section 14 of the Act. But supposing the consumer has accepted the above mentioned exemption clause that he will not hold the (1) (1969), All E.R. 1221 at 122431 seller liable for damages for a defect in the product in return for a guarantee, it is doubtful, whether he can claim any damages from the manufacturer. An advantage in the Contract based remedies is that, it is not necessary to prove negligence of the seller. The liability is rather strict. In recent years it has been observed that there is growing realisation that in order to ensure that manufacturers take due care in the process of manufacture of product, heavy damages are exacted from the manufacturers. This tendency is justified firstly, because of the better financial capacity of the manufacturer to meet the damages and secondly, the industrial products are generally considered to be hazard of modern industrial society. In the case of industrial products involving safety, the general trend is to apply the maximum ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ in favour of plaintiff. In this 1 connection the Bhopal Gas leakage disaster+ can be taken as an example where the Courts applied the maxim fi] Union Carbide Corporation, USA Vs Union of India Civil Revision No.26 of 198832 to relieve plaintiff from the burden of proof. In the above mentioned case, the highest court in India has laid down the law relating to liability of an enterprise which is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. Further, an attempt is made to Prepare a catalogue of hazardous processes in Factories Act of 1948 by way of amendment to it in 1987, It contains a Schedule which list out Industries Involving Hazardous Processes. This also poses some practical Problems. For example, the wheel of a vehicle is not hazardous but if negligently made use, it can also cause a serious accident. Likewise, an Aircraft when handled by competent pilot is not inherently dangerous instrument but if handed negligently can do hazardous. Thus, it is important to save life and Property. No less care is needed in respect of other products which in ordinary course of events are innocuous but in certain situation pose a risk to safety. Product liability essentially is concerned with such products. Its objective is to bring about quality control. The Product liability cases in India are negligible. The reason may be, it is difficult to establish negligence on the part of the defendant.33 Further, Indian Consumer have no knowledge about the complexities of modern technology. They do not have the necessary experts to understand the defects of the Products. They do not have means to fight the legal battle with gained manufacturers. There is no system of testing products in India. Though ISI and BIS exist, the enforcement machinery is ineffective. Defective consumer goods are rampant in the market. They are sold to consumer without any fear and cause havoc to the society. To quote a few, in Bombay in J. J. Hospital 14 persons died between 2ist January 1986 and 7th February 1986 due to contaminated glycerine administered to them. The enquiry revealed that, the manufacturers M/s Ganesh Chemicals had violated the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Because of defective manufacturing of the product, the tragedy occurred.+ Another tragedy took place on 4th March 1989 when in Baroda 130 person died by consuming contaminated liquor manufactured locally.” Liquor tragedies are not uncommon in India and they take heavy toll of life every year. The most [1] quoted D.N. Saraf, Law of Consumer Protection in India 1990 Page No. 84 (2] Economic Times, 12 May 1989.34 Painful aspect of these tragedies is that no compensation claims are filed against the bootleggers and errant and corrupt Officials for various reasons. Government, with a view to ensure quality control of products, has issued many orders which prohibit manufacture and sale of products which are dangerous to Public safety. The order as amended in 1987 and 1988 Provides for many products to be of a specific standard. In India, the present law dealing with product liability is based on the decision in the famous case of Donghue Vs Stevenson. In this case, Mrs. Donghue went to a Cafe with her friend. They ordered for a bottle of ginger beer and an ice-cream. After consuming some beer, Mrs. Donghue found a snail floating out of the bottle. She suffered a shock and also with gastro-enteritis. In an action brought against the manufacturer by Mrs. Stevenson it was found that there was no contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the defendant, but nevertheless, the House of Lords held that the defendant liable. It was held that manufacturer of a product owed a duty to the [iT Supra Note-535 consumer to take reasonable care in the preparation or Putting up the products. Lord Atkins observed: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, who, then, in law is my neighbour?, The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”.+ Thus in a tort action, a consumer can initiate an action against a manufacturer even though there exists no Privacy between them, but he has to establish negligence on the part of the manufacturer, It is now well settled that, it is the duty of the manufacturer, to take reasonable care to ensure that the products, though non-hazardous do not endanger public safety. Therefore, it becomes necessary for manufacturer to establish a system of quality control to check products and their performance. (1] ibid36 The product liability in India in tort cases is still governed by negligence and to establish negligence out of complex cases becomes difficult for a consumer. Therefore, there has been a shift from the fault of the manufacturer to fault in the product. Section 14, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with defective products and negligence of the nufacturer, The relevant portion of the Section-14 is as follows: + (The District Forum) shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things, namely: a) To remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate Laboratory from the goods in question. b) To replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect. c) To return to the complainant the price or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant.37 d) To pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the Consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the Consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.” It is to be observed that, the District Forum will order for repair, replacement or return of the price. But, if compensation for loss or injury is claimed by the consumer, it is necessary for him to prove negligence of the manufacturer, distributor or supplier of goods. Thus, the defect alone is not sufficient to claim the damages, but negligence of the opposite party has to be proved by the consumer. To prove the negligence due to the complexity of the product becomes very difficult for the consumer, Therefore, to avoid the heavy burden of proof the maxim ‘res ipsa liquitor’ (the things speaks of itself) is to be applied, giving an opportunity to the defendant to rebute it. In Shyam Sundar Vs State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court has very rightly observed: + the principal function of the maxim is to Prevent injustice which would result if a (iJ AIR 1974 5.C. 890, 89238 Plaintiff were invariably complied to prove the Precise cause of accident.” To overcome the difficulty it is necessary to study the provisions of the English Act. The newly enacted Consumer Protection Act, 1987, of United Kingdom provides that: "Where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product, persons mentioned below will be liable for the damages: a) The producer of the product. b) Any Person who holds himself out to be the producer of the product by using a trade mark, putting his name on the Product. c) The importer of the product into a member-state from a place outside the member-state,”* However, under Section 4 of the same Act, there are some defences available to the defendant which are: [1] Section - 2,39 1) The defendant can show that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was not such that a producer of products of the same description as the product in question might be expected to have discovered the effects if it had existed in his products while they were under his control. 2) He can also show that the defect was attributable to compliance imposed by or under any law or with community obligation. 3) He can further show that the supply of the product to another was otherwise than in the course of business of that purpose. The defences available are very limited and the United Kingdom has introduced the Strict Liability. In India on account of rapid industrialisation during last few decades, there has been an enormous increase of consumer goods. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the ‘Law of Caveat Emptor’ seems to have outdated in view of the protection given to consumers, as Provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Now,40 no breach of contract or condition of a warranty is required to be proved nor the buyer is supposed to be aware of the nature, quality and quantity of goods and the manufacturer or seller of goods and the Person rendering services are liable strictly by way of Strict liability as has been evolved under the Act. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 makes such an arrangement where a consumer is entitle to obtain reliefs irrespective of the factum of breach of Contract, condition of warranty in the case of any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained under the law.1 The use of many of these products pose some important questions of human safety. For example many Pharmaceutical products are found to be substandard. The consumers who are ignorant are the easy victims, since such drugs are generally sold in rural areas or in the Bastis (slums) in the Cities. In case of any disaster, it is found that only criminal cases are filed against the manufacturers. Government pays few thousands to the victims. Thus, for the faults in the Product, the manufacturers escapes liability and the (1] See Section 2(1)(g) and (5) of the Act.4a State is made to pay to the victim or his dependents. Therefore, what is required is that, Consumers must be encouraged to file suits for compensation against the delinquent manufacturers or those provide services. Mere criminal action is not sufficient to curb these evils. On the lines of United Kingdom’s Consumer Protection Act, 1987 absolute liability is to be introduced in India. Further, It is submitted that a suitable amendment be made in Section 14, of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 in India.