I Year B.B.A LL.

B – Semester-II (2021)

2nd - Internal Assessment

Law of Torts – II

HYPOTHETICAL / PROBLEM BASED QUESTION

NAME: APURVA RANJAN

DIVISION: A

PRN: 21010126079

COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2021-2026

WORD COUNT: 1,736 (excluding citations and problem statement)

Mr. Sherlock is working as software professional in Bangalore. He has purchased one
“Z-BLACK” laptop made by “DC electronics and technology” from popular dealer of
the city “Quality Systems” by paying Rs.35000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) on
20/02/2019 and gifted it to his close friend Ms. Barrymore. Ms. Barrymore owns one
private consultancy firm, she started to use the laptop for business purpose. Though
seller had given three years warranty against the manufacturing defects, within three
years of purchase the various defects were found in laptop and the same was
communicated by Ms. Barrymore to Dealer and manufacturer, but no response was
received from their side. Finally, the device stopped working completely on 07/02/2022.
Mr. Sherlock sent letters to the dealer and manufacturer, which went unanswered.
Even legal notice issued by Mr. Sherlock was not answered by the Dealer and
manufacturer. Now Ms. Barrymore has decided to file a consumer case against the
Dealer and manufacturer to claim compensation of Rs. 2, 25,000/- (Rs. Rupees two
lakh twenty-five thousand). Advise Ms. Barrymore.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Is Ms. Barrymore a consumer?

2. Is the seller and the manufacturer liable under the Consumer Protection Act?
3. Is Ms. Barrymore responsible for compensation?

PROVISIONS APPLIED IN THE ABOVE GIVEN PROBLEM

1. Section 82- Application of Chapter

2. Section 83- Product Liability Action.
3. Section 84- Liability of Product Manufacturer.
4. Section 86- Liability of Product Sellers.
5. Breach of Warranty
 ANALYSIS ALONG WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS AND CASE LAWS

Ms. Barrymore can be considered as a customer in the aforementioned situation, even if she
received the laptop as a gift from Mr. Sherlock, because she is the product's end user.
Furthermore, the definition of a consumer in the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 stipulates
that use of products for commercial reasons does not include use of goods to make a living
in the event of self-employment.
The Supreme Court stated in the case of LAXMI ENGINEERING WORKS V P.S.G
INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE1 that the words "uses them by himself," "exclusively for the
purpose of earning his livelihood," and "by means of self-employment" used in the
explanation make Parliament's meaning very clear: the items purchased must be used by the
buyer himself, by employing himself to earn a living.
Section 82 defines a product liability claim as "any claim for damages asserted by a plaintiff
in a product liability lawsuit because of an injury caused by a faulty product manufactured
by a product manufacturer, maintained by a product service provider, or sold by a product
seller." In this situation, the laptop began to exhibit significant problems on the first day of
operation, indicating poor design. In this case, injury is defined as Ms. Berrymore's mental
anguish due to her participation in the legal notice, as well as the legal paperwork she filed
with the dealer and manufacturer that was disregarded.
Section 84 of the Act creates product producers' responsibility in five specific situations:
1. Defective design
2. deviation from manufacturing specifications
3. explicit warranty violation
4. failure to give proper instructions or warning
5. defective manufacture
Because the complainant cannot be assumed to have expert knowledge as to whether the
harm was caused by a defective product or a poor product service, in most cases involving
deficient product services, such as repair or maintenance, a consumer would name both the
manufacturer and the product service provider as disputing parties when filing a complaint.
In this instance, the manufacturer and dealer must compensate the customer, Mr. Sherlock,

1
Laxmi Engineering Works V P.S.G Industrial Institute, 1995 S.C.C (3) 583
and Ms. Berrymore due to a breach of the claimed warranty and a design flaw that caused
the laptop to cease operating.
In a product liability case, a product seller who is not a product manufacturer is responsible
if:
1. He had considerable influence over the design, testing, manufacturing, packing, or
labeling of a product that caused injury.
2. He altered or modified the product, and this alteration or modification had a significant
role in producing the injury.
3. He did not use reasonable care in assembling, inspecting, or maintaining the product.
In this instance, the manufacturer is obligated to refund the consumer. Despite the fact that
the warranty was only for three months, he declined to look into the problem, despite Ms.
Berrymore's attempts to contact him. Furthermore, if the merchant makes a mistake, the
buyer has redress.
Even though Mr. Sherlock purchased the laptop, Ms. Barrymore has the right to file a
complaint. Contract privacy refers to the concept that if you are not a party to the contract,
you cannot sue. You no longer need a "privilege of contract" to sue for product liability;
anybody who the defendant expects to be hurt can sue.
The court found in HENNINGSEN V. BLOOMFIELD 2Motors Inc. that the Plaintiff was
entitled to redress owing to a breach of the implicit assurance of safety. Because product
liability extended to all expected users, it makes no difference that the plaintiff's wife was
injured rather than the plaintiff.
It is deemed a breach of contract when an express or implicit pledge is breached. In other
words, it happens when the warrantor fails to offer the promised guarantee. The buyer has a
breach of warranty claim under Section 84(1). (d). However, flaws were uncovered, and on
February 7, 2022, the laptop stopped operating entirely, implying a warranty breach. The
vendor may face legal consequences as a result of his breach of warranty.

2
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc, 32 N.J. 358; 161 A.2d 69
 INNOVATIVE APPROACH FOR SOLUTION

The following new ways to problem solutions are suggested by the problem statement: - 
Consumer Redressal: - The firm should enhance the complaint redressal procedure, since
they are responsible for repairing electronic equipment that is still under warranty, resulting
in a civil suit being launched in a court of law.

CONCLUSION

In the above-mentioned case, I believe Ms. Barrymore is entitled to compensation from the
manufacturer and dealer for the damages she has incurred, including mental pain and
anxiety, as well as professional loss as a result of the laptop's inability to operate. She even
issued a legal warning to the manufacturer and dealer, which went unread and unheeded.
She stated that Rs. 2, 25,000/- in compensation was appropriate because the guarantee was
for three years, which was not taken into account when she requested that the laptop be
fixed. The manufacturer was obligated to repair the laptop, particularly during the warranty
period, but this was ignored, and the legal notification went unanswered.
As a result, Ms. Barrymore is eligible for compensation under several provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act of 2019.
2. Akira, along with her daughter (1year old), went to “First Class” super mart to shop
for a few domestic products. The products in the mart were displayed in racks along
various aisles. Akira shopped by choosing products off the racks, while pushing the
child stroller along. She stopped the stroller at a point on an aisle and went back about
5-6 feet to check a product that she had just passed through. While she was engrossed
in inspecting the product, her child in the stroller managed to reach across to a can of
caustic soda, manufactured by “Elements Company”. The can was displayed on the
ground level rack and had a defective lid, due to which the child managed to reach it,
open and also ingest some of the contents. Upon her daughter crying out, Akira rushed
towards the child and knocked the can away immediately. But her daughter got
severely injured due to having ingested some contents. Akira wants to file a product
liability action against First Class Super Mart and Elements Company. Discuss the
possible liability of the super mart and the company. Explain the legal factors and
provisions to be considered in determining Akira’s claim, including exceptions to
liability.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Is the seller liable for failing to inspect the items with substandard packaging?
2. Is the firm accountable for the products faulty packaging?
3. Is Akira liable for contributory negligence?

PROVISIONS APPLIED IN THE ABOVE GIVEN PROBLEM

1. Section 83- Product Liability Action.

2. Section 84- Liability of Product Manufacturer.
3. Section 86- Liability of Product Sellers

ANALYSIS ALONG WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS AND CASE LAWS

According to Section 83 of the Product Liability Act, "Depending on the circumstances, a
complainant can file a product liability lawsuit against a product manufacturer, a product
service provider, or a product seller for any damage caused by a faulty product." the
manufacturer (Elements Company) is held liable. Because the Caustic Soda was packaged
with a damaged cover, Akira's daughter swallowed it, rendering the product maker
accountable under Section 84 of Product Liability, which says:-
In a product liability case, a product producer is responsible if:

1. The product has a manufacturing flaw.

2. The design of the product is flawed.
3. There is an error in the production requirements.
4. The product does not meet the stated warranty requirements.

5. The product lacks appropriate instructions on proper usage to prevent any injury or
warning about improper or wrong use.

In the case of BOURHILL V. YOUNG3, it was determined that the responsibility to take
care is the requirement to refrain from doing or failing to do anything that might reasonably
and probable cause harm to others. The responsibility is owed to those who would be
harmed if the duty is not met. The youngster may be harmed as a result of the
manufacturer's poor packing, rendering the manufacturer negligently responsible.
Similarly, in the case of DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON4, the court determined that
producers owed a duty of care to their goods' end-users, or customers. Lord Atkin's ratio
decendi states that "a producer of items, which he sells... to reach the ultimate client in the
shape in which they left him... bears a responsibility to the customer to take reasonable
care," which makes the manufacturer accountable in this case.

Section 86 of the Product Liability Act holds the seller (Super Mart) liable if he failed to
exercise reasonable care in inspecting such product or if he failed to pass on the product
manufacturer's warnings or instructions regarding the dangers involved or proper usage of
the product while selling such product, and such failure was the proximate cause of the
harm. The failure to examine the damaged lid of the can of Caustic Soda and the lack to

3
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
4
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562
issue proper warnings when selling the goods resulted in its consumption by Akira's
daughter, rendering the vendor accountable for negligence.
In MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V SUBHAGWANTI 5, it was decided
that failing to check and take adequate safety precautions as part of one's duties makes one
accountable for negligence if it causes injury to the plaintiff.

EXCEPTION

Though the Consumer Protection Act holds the vendor and maker accountable, Akira's
actions make her liable for contributory fault. According to the definition of contributory
negligence, if the plaintiff is negligent in taking reasonable precautions to prevent
consequences and is therefore the direct cause of the losses, he is not entitled to
compensation.
In the above statement, Akira's negligence at leaving the child alone in the store, which
resulted in the toddler drinking caustic soda, amounted to Akira being negligent and
contributing to contributory negligence.
In MANJULA DEVI BHUTA V. MANJUSRI RAHA 6, the court found that if the
plaintiff's act or omission significantly contributed to the injury, and the act or omission was
of such a kind that it could fairly be regarded as negligence, the plaintiff would be held
accountable for contributory negligence.

INNOVATIVE APPROACH FOR SOLUTION

The following novel approaches to problem solutions are suggested by the problem
statement: -

1. Seller: The seller shall categories the items based on the manufacturer's
warnings/instructions and display the products with sign boards indicating the product's
danger. The vendor should also undertake frequent checks to ensure the items'
durability.

5
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750

6
Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjusri Raha, 1968 ACJ 1
2. Manufacturer: A product inspection system should be implemented by the producer to
guarantee correct product packaging. Aside from the packaging, the producer shall also
show warning signs to alert the seller to the presence of harmful materials in the items.

CONCLUSION

According to the study, both the maker and the seller are accountable for carelessness and
faulty packing under Sections 83, 84 and 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The
amount of compensation to be paid may be lowered because the plaintiff (Akira)
participated in the act by leaving the kid unsupervised in the supermarket.