CONCEPT OF STRICT AND

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Sweta Lakhani
Strict Liability
◦ It is a kind of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences
flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of
the defendant.
◦ It is basically a legal doctrine that holds a party (defendant) responsible for its actions,
without the plaintiff having to prove the negligence or fault on the part of defendant.
◦ When any person involves in ultra hazardous activities such as keeping wild animals,
using explosives or making defective products,
◦ then he/she may be held liable if any other person is injured because of that activity,
even if the defendant took necessary precautions and followed safety requirement.
Strict Liability
A few instances where this rule is applicable:-

a) Activities involving non-natural use of land.

b) Activities involving dangerous operations such as blasting, mining, etc.
c) Liability arising out of keeping or taming dangerous animals.
d) Liability for dangerous structures e.g. building, ship, rail, etc.
e) Liability for dangerous chattels such as crackers, explosives, petrol, etc.
Essentials

Dangerous
substances

Escape

Non-natural use
DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
◦ It means that if a person uses dangerous things and due to which any damage
occurred, then that person is liable to pay compensation to other person for the
damage caused to him.
◦ According to the above mentioned rule, the liability of escape of a thing from a
person’s land will arise only when the thing or substance collected is a dangerous thing
◦ i.e. a thing which is likely to cause mischief or damage to other people in person or
their property on its escape.
◦ Example: dangerous thing means anything like large quantum of water, gas, electricity,
explosive, etc.
ESCAPE
◦ Another essential of feature of Strict Liability is escape which states that all the things
which causes harm to another person if escaped from the property of the person using
it and should not be in reach of the person.
◦ The thing that has caused damage or mischief must ‘escape’ from the area under the
occupation and control of the defendant.
◦ For example, if a person A has grown some dangerous plants which may cause serious
harm to any person or animal consuming it. If a person B’s Sheep ate that plant
because some of them have been fallen in B’s land so, in this case A is responsible to
compensate B for his loss but if B’s Sheep enters A’s land and ate that plant then A is
not liable for the loss.
◦ This can be better explained by bringing in two examples-
1. Crowhurst vs.Amersham Burial Board, (1878) 4 Ex. D. 5; Cheater vs. Cater, (1908) 1 K.B. 247

If the branches of a poisonous tree that is planted on the defendant’s land spreads out to the
neighbouring plaintiff’s land, this amounts to the escape of that dangerous, poisonous thing from
the boundaries or control of the defendant and onto the plaintiff’s land. Now, the issue arises, if
the cattle of the plaintiff nibbles on these leaves, then the defendant will be held liable under the
mentioned rule even when nothing was done intentionally on his part.

2. Read vs. Lyons and Co., (1947) A.C. 156

The plaintiff worked as an employee in the defendant’s shell manufacturing company, while she
was on duty within the premises of the company, a shell being manufactured there exploded
due to which the plaintiff suffered injuries. A case was filed against the defendant company but
the court let off the defendant giving the verdict that strict liability is not applicable here as the
explosion took place within the defendant’s premises, the concept of escape of a dangerous
thing like the shell from the boundaries of the defendant is missing here. Also negligence on the
part of the defendant could not be proved.
 NON- NATURAL USE
◦ There should be non-natural usage of land to make the defendant liable.
◦ It means that if a stored water is used for a natural use like domestic purpose then a person
cannot be held liable for any harm occurred due to it.
◦ This distinction between natural and non-natural use of land can be made possible by its
adjustment to existing social conditions.
◦ Growing of trees is held natural use of land but if the defendant is found to grow trees of
poisonous nature on his land, then it is non-natural use of the land.
◦ If the land has been used naturally yet a conflict has risen between the defendant and the
plaintiff, owing to natural use of land, the court will not hold the defendant liable.
◦ In Sochacki v. Sas,
◦ It has been held that having a fire place is natural use of land. Even if there is escape of fire
from the fire place and the plaintiff suffers harm, the defendants were not held liable as there
was no non-natural use of land.
 DEFENCES
/EXCEPTIONS
DEFAULT OF THE PLAINTIFF
◦ According this exception,
◦ it is stated that the defendant will not liable for loss occurred to the plaintiff if he is itself
responsible for the act,
◦ even if a person has taken all the reasonable care and
◦ the plaintiff due to his own fault suffered injury, then he itself is liable for the harm and
defendant is free from any charge.
ACT OF GOD
◦ It is another exception,
◦ which states that if the loss is occurred by the act of god that means by any natural
calamities like flood, earthquake, etc.
◦ then nobody will be at fault because these things are beyond the control of humans.
 CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF
◦ This exception says that if a person has the knowledge of the harm which could be
caused by during a particular act and still he did that act then he is liable for his own
act.
◦ He cannot make any other person liable for that act until and unless that person is
negligent in any way and of which he had no knowledge.
◦ This is also known Volenti Non Fit Injuria.
ACT OF THE THIRD PARTY
◦ According this, if harm is caused by an act of stranger or third party
◦ and there is default on the part of either the plaintiff or defendant but due some act of
a stranger the loss occurred so in that case, the defendant is not liable for that act.
◦ The word stranger or third party does not include any servant, agent, etc. of the
defendant.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
◦ The word ‘statutory authority’ means any authority which governed by law
◦ and at the instructions of this authority a person commits an act
◦ which led to damage to any person then that person
◦ who acted on the instruction of the statutory authority will not be held liable because
he obliged to follow the demands of that authority.
 RYLANDS
VS. FLETCHER, 1868
 Rickards v. Lothian (2013) AC 263
◦ Facts:
◦ The claimant rented premises on the second floor of a building which was used for
commercial purposes and ran a business from the premises he was renting.
◦ The defendant was the owner of that building. He leased the building in parts to
various business tenants.
◦ The case arose because someone had maliciously blocked all the sinks in the toilets on
the fourth floor of the defendant’s building.
◦ The same person had then turned on all the taps, clearly with the intention of causing
a flood and therefore causing damage.
◦ Eventually the flooding on the fourth floor travelled down to the second floor and
damaged the property of the claimant.
◦ The claimant then started the case, basing himself on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
arguing that he had suffered damage as a result of the escape of the water from the
defendant’s premises.
 Rickards v. Lothian (2013) AC 263
◦ Issues
◦ whether a finding of non-natural use of land and Rylands v Fletcher liability could be
found where an escape (which otherwise might constitute such liability) was caused by
the malicious actions of a third party, rather than of the Defendants?
◦ whether water in this context could be seen as something not naturally on the land
which had been brought to it by the Defendant?

◦ Decision / Outcome
◦ The court held the Defendant to not be liable. First, water supplied to a building is a
natural use of the land. The rule of Rylands v Fletcher requires a special use of the land.
Second, Rylands v Fletcher liability will not be found where the damage was caused by
a wrongful and malicious act of a third party.
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
Absolute Liability
◦ The concept of Absolute liability was also transformed in the same manner where
economic activities and industrialization in today's frame is far different from what it was
in the past.
◦ So, the principle of No-Fault Liability' was introduced which is the base for the absolute
liability concept. In India, the need for such a principle arose out of unfortunate tragic
incidents like Bhopal Gas Leak Case' and 'Oleum Gas Leak case where the Supreme
Court of India stepped in and started to hold this principle of absolute liability which
evolved from the principle of No-Fault liability in English law.
◦ This concept is like the Strict Liability but is wider in scope and is without any exception
which are there is the concept of Strict Liability.
◦ According to this concept, a person cannot take defense of the exception lead down
in the Strict Liability. It says that if a person has damaged the property of another than it
is liable for the act, he cannot escape from the liability.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy
◦ This rule was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the
night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984.
◦ Leakage of 'Methyl Isocyanate' poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster.
◦ Over three thousand people lost their lives.
◦ There was heavy loss to property, flora and fauna.
◦ A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the Union Carbide Company in
Bhopal was a branch of the US based Union Carbide Company.
◦ The case was dismissed owing to no jurisdiction.
◦ The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster Act, 1985 and sued the
company for damages on behalf of the victims.
◦ The court applying the principle of Absolute Liability held the company liable and ordered it
to pay compensation to victims.
Inception in India

1. The following modifications in the existing Doctrine of Rylands vs. Fletcher led to the following
Doctrine of Absolute Liability that prevented the defendants from taking up any defence against
payment of compensation.
2. If an industry or enterprise is involved in any inherently dangerous activity, then for any damage
arising out of the conduction of that activity, the defendants (the owners of the industry) will have no
access to any defence or exception and will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to the
aggrieved parties.
3. The enterprise will be held responsible for all possible damages or consequences resulting from the
activity. This will make such industries provide safety equipments to its workers to prevent any mishap.
Therefore, this will safeguard the interests of the workers and will give them a refined, safe working
atmosphere.
4. The element of escape which is an essential in strict liability may be ignored here as this restricts the
application of this Doctrine of Absolute Liability as often incidents may arise where escape of the
dangerous thing like poisonous fumes may not take place outside the industry premises but may
damage the workers inside. In this case, the workers’ right to compensation will not be ignored.
Therefore, the extent of this principle is to be applied in a wider context ruling out the element of
escape.
5. In cases where strict liability applies, compensation paid is according to the nature and quantum of
damages caused but in cases of absolute liability, compensation or damage to be paid is
exemplary in nature. The amount decided upon should be more than the damage caused as
industrial hazardous accidents generally causes mass death and destruction of property and
environment.
 M.C. Mehta V.S. Union Of India
◦ Fact Of The Case:
On the fourth and sixth of December, 1985, there was a spill of oleum gas in Delhi. It happened in
one of the divisions of the Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries undertaking, which has a place
with the Delhi Cloth Mills, Ltd. A few group were injured in this assault, and one individual passed
on, who turned out to be a lawyer working in the Tis Hazari Court. The attorney M.C. Mehta himself
documented a writ request as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the situation.

This was not the first instance of gas spillage in Quite a while that prompted numerous causes. The
primary concern was that assuming severe obligation enactment was rehearsed, any of these
glitches coming about because of the activities of those huge organizations would straightforwardly
go under the exceptions to the previously mentioned responsibility. Thus, they will pull off no fault
for the harm they do over the span of their hazardous activity.

It would not exclusively be low to the individuals who have endured because of the harm, however it
would likewise give the feeling that huge partnerships are excluded to obligation.

Judgement:
Following the Court's consideration of the above questions, it decided to develop a new rule; the
statute of absolute responsibility, as formulated by (then) Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati.
Defamation

Sweta Lakhani
 Defamation is, in essence,
the act of publishing an untrue
statement which negatively affects
someone’s reputation.

2
• Word ‘reputation’ is synonymous with ‘fame’.
• ‘reputation’ is the beliefs or opinions that are generally
held about someone or something.
• It is widespread belief that someone or
something has a particular habit or characteristic.
• ‘Fame’ is the condition of being known or talked about
by many people, esp. on account of notable
achievements

3
 Example
A newspaper knowingly
prints an article falsely
asserting that a public
figure has cheated on
business partners in the
past.

4
 • “Defamation is the publication
of a statement which tends to
Winfield lower a person in the
estimation of right thinking
members of the society
defines: generally or which tends to
make them hate or avoid that
person”.

• “ Defamation consists in the

publication of a false and
Salmond defamatory statement
concerning another without
lawful justification”.
defines:
5
Essential Elements for Defamation

× 1. False statement.
× 2. Publication.
× 3. Published by defendant.
× 4. The statement must refer to plaintiff.
× 5. Defamatory statement.

6
False statement.

× The statement must be false. It means

which is not true.
× If the statement is not false or actual
narration; it is not amounting to
defamation.
× Here statement include written or oral
statement.
7
 Parmiter v Coupland [1840] 6 M&W 105.

The claimant was the mayor of Winchester. A

newspaper, the Hampshire Advertiser, printed a
series of statements imputing that the mayor was
corrupt, and ignoring his duties as mayor.

Defamation was described by Parker B, at 108,

as “A publication, without justification or lawful
excuse, which is calculated to injure the
reputation of another, by exposing them to
hatred, contempt or ridicule”.

8
Publication
Publication of the statement is necessary for defamation.
• ‘Publication’ is understood in technical sense in relation
to the tort of defamation. It means the contents of the
defamatory statement are conveyed to someone else
other than the plaintiff.
• If defendant has communicated defamatory statement
only to the plaintiff and to none else then, it shall not
amount to defamation.
• If the defamatory letter is send to the plaintiff is likely to
be read by somebody else, there is a publication.

10
 Pullman v W. Hill & Co Ltd [1891] 1 QB 524

× The defendant dictated a defamatory statement to his typist

so that it could be written in a letter. The letter was sent to
the claimant, and then opened by one of his mailroom
clerks. The claimant brought a case for defamation against
the defendant on the basis that this constituted publication.
The claim succeeded – this was sufficient to establish
publication. Lord Esher MR provided (at 527) the
following definition of publication:
× “The making known of the defamatory matter after it has
been written to some person other than the person of
whom it is written”.

11
 Published by Defendant.

•The statement must be published by the defendant.

• Where plaintiff himself publishes statement; no action

lies.

• Where publishers are jointly and severally liable; all can

be sued. For example – writer, editor and publisher of
newspaper.

Example: “where the writer of a letter locks it up in his own

desk, and a thief comes and breaks open the desk and takes
away the letter and makes it contents known […] no intentional
publication by the author occurs.”
12
 The statement must refer to plaintiff

•In an action for defamation, the statement alleged must

refer to the plaintiff.
• It is not necessary to show that, the defendant intended
to refer the plaintiff.
•Plaintiff has to prove that the statement referred to him. It
is immaterial that the defendant did no intend to defame
the plaintiff. If the person to whom the statement was
published could reasonably infer that the statement
referred to the plaintiff then defendant is liable.
• In case of defamatory statement, intention or motive are
immaterial. Good faith or ignorance of the defamatory
statement is not defence. The burden of proof that the
words are false does not lie on the plaintiff.
13
 Defamatory statement

•Only defamatory statement amounts to defamation.

• A statement is defamatory if it lowers down plaintiff in the

estimation of right thinking persons of the society OR
it is a statement which if known to a reasonable person shall
cause him to be shun and avoided by the person in the
society.
•A statement is defamatory if it tends to injure reputation
of a person.
• it is not necessary that such injury to reputation should
be in the eyes of everyone; but it is sufficient if such
injury is in the eyes of certain group of respectable
persons.
14
Innuendo
The Doctrine of Innuendo in law means "an indirect hint”.
Sometimes defamation is not , in terms apparent or prima facie
clear. It is often couched in subtle language.
• The words are not defamatory in its ordinary sense but due to
circumstances it amount to defamatory. This is innuendo.
• It is a kind of remark, intimation or question which is
disparaging or implication.
•Eg: the person about whom defamatory statements have been
made in a blind item. The courts in India have stated that
defamation by innuendo is well known and it is not always
necessary to name the person.

15
 Two Kinds of
Defamation

Libel Slander
Libel
• Libel is publication of a false and
defamatory statement in some permanent
form tending to injure the reputation of
another person without lawful
justification or excuse.

• Examples- writing, printing, picture,

online publication, cartoons, etc.

• X printed some advertisement saying Y is

bankrupt but Y was not thus it was
representation in a specific form.
Slander
• Slander is false or defamatory, verbal
or oral statement in some transitory
form, tending to injure the reputation
of another without lawful justification
or excuse.

• Example- words uttered, comments,

explanation, on radio, television etc.

• A questions the chastity of B in an

interview, A is slanderous.
 Foulger v Newcomb [1867] LR 2 Ex. 327

The claimant was a gamekeeper tasked with

preserving foxes.

A slanderous statement was made that he was

poisoning them instead.

This was actionable, since it the statement was

directed against his ability to practice his
profession.

19
Libel Slander
1. It is written 1. It is spoken
defamation defamation
addressed to the addressed to ear.
eye.
2. It is in transitory
2. It is in permanent form.
form.
3. It is civil wrong
3. It is both civil and only.
criminal wrong. 4. It is not actionable
4. It is actionable per per se unless there
se. is special damage.

20
Defenses

21
 Justification or truth.
× The truth of defamatory words is complete defense.
× If the statement is true; the motive is irrelevant.
× Statement based on rumors is not sufficient.
× The truth must be proved by the defendant otherwise
he will be liable.
× For example, a person tells a group of people that
another person had been convicted of theft.
× The defendant may also argue that the statement was
made in the public interest.
× For example, declaring that a charity director had been
dealing dishonestly with the funds.
22
Fair and bonafide comment

× This is another defense for an action of

defamation. To avail this defense following
conditions are essential.
× 1. It must be a comment.
× 2. The comment must be fair.
× 3. The matter commented upon must be of public
matter.

23
 1. It must be a comment.

× Comment means, an expression of opinion on

certain facts. It is different than mere statement of
fact.
× It is essential that, the facts commented upon
must be either known to the audience addressed.

24
 2. The comment must be fair.

× Fair comment means, comments honestly

believed to be true and not inspired by any
malicious motive.
× A comment based upon untrue fact, is not fair
comment.

25
3. The matter commented upon must be of public
matter.

To treat a comment upon public matter, such matter

must be
a) in which the public in general have a legitimate interest,
directly or indirectly, nationally or locally.
b) matters which are expressly or impliedly submitted to
public criticism or attention.
Eg.- administration of Government, departments, public
companies, courts, conduct of public men like
ministers and officers, public institutions, public
meetings, plays, books, artist etc.

26
 Privilege

× Privilege means that a person stands in such a relation

to the facts of the case that he is justified in saying or
writing what would be defamatory. In this situation,
right of defendant is more important than right of
reputation of plaintiff.
× There are two types of privilege ‘absolute’ and
‘qualified’ privilege.

27
 Absolute Privilege

× A statement is absolutely privileged when no action lies

for it; when it is false, defamatory and with express malice.
Eg:
× Parliamentary proceeding
× Judicial proceeding
× Military proceeding
× State proceeding
× Judicial report
× This particularly refers to politicians who can say what
they like in the houses of parliament and not be sued for
defamation. 28
 Qualified Privilege

× A statement is said to be qualified privilege, when no

action lies for it even though it is false and defamatory
unless it is made with express malice.
Eg: communication made in the course of legal, social or
× moral duty,
× for self protection,
× for protection of common interest, and
× for public good

29
 Apology

× This is a statutory defense in an action for libel

contained in a public newspaper or periodical, wherein
apology is published and accepted.
× For this defense, defendant must show absence of
malice and gross negligence and such apology should
be published at the earliest.

30
 Honest opinion

× applies if the defendant can show that:

× a) the matter was an expression of opinion rather than a
statement of fact;
× (b) that the opinion relates to a matter of public
interest;
× (c) that the opinion is based on proper material.
× Critical statements made by a reporter as part of a
review of an art show, a music performance or a movie
can be regarded as an honest opinion.

31
 Innocent dissemination

× Applies if the defendant can show they unknowingly

sold or distributed a defamatory publication.
× The defense protects persons such as book sellers,
newsagents, libraries or the provider of electronic
services such as internet web sites.
× The defense will fail if the plaintiff can show the
defendant knew or ought to have known the material
was defamatory.

32
 Triviality

× applies in circumstances where it is unlikely that

the plaintiff will sustain any harm.
× An example is publication of material that is mildly
offensive to the plaintiff.

33
Hough v. London Express Newspaper, Limited (1940) 2 KB 575

A newspaper published details of a bigamy trial and referred to

the accused as “Harold Newstead, thirty-year-old Camberwell
man.” Another man by the name of Harold Newstead, also from
Camberwell and aged around thirty, brought an action in libel
against the newspaper. He claimed that the article had been
misunderstood as referring to him. The defendant newspaper
admitted publication of the account but denied that they were
intended or understood to refer to the plaintiff or that they were
defamatory of him. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were
under a duty to take reasonable care to give a precise and detailed
description of the correct Harold Newstead, denoting him
exclusively, and to ensure that the words published were not
capable of referring to any other person. They were in breach of
this duty. The key question was whether reasonable persons
would understand the words complained of to refer to the
plaintiff.
34
 Hough v. London Express Newspaper, Limited (1940) 2 KB 575

× Held
× The Court of Appeal noted that it is established law that liability
for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on
the fact of the defamation.
× Accordingly, in a case such as this it may be right to direct the
jury that a reasonable man, and, in particular, a newspaper
publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the
same name and must assume that the words published will be
read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.
× The Court held that the evidence justified a finding by the jury
that a reasonable man may have understood the words
complained of to refer to the plaintiff.
× The fact that the words were true of another person was not a
valid defence against a claim of libel.

35
 Huth v Huth [1915] 3 KB 32

The defendant, Captain Huth, sent an allegedly defamatory letter in an

unclosed envelope through the post to his four children. The letter
contained an implication that the children were illegitimate. The
letter was taken out of the envelope and read by a butler in breach
of his duties and out of curiosity. At trial, the claim was dismissed
on the basis that there was no evidence of publication of the
libellous information.
On appeal, counsel for the appellants contended that the defendant
knew that the document was likely to be taken out of the envelope
and read and he must therefore be responsible for it. The only
obligation on the plaintiffs was to show that the words are
susceptible to defamatory meaning. The respondent argued that
there had never been a successful libel claim where the publication
had been sent in an envelope. This should be contrasted with a
postcard or telegram where there is a reasonable inference that the
matter would be published.
36
 Huth v Huth [1915] 3 KB 32

× The Court of Appeal was of the view that it was not right to treat a
letter in an “ungummed” envelope with a halfpenny stamp as
though it were an open letter.
× Such a letter required some act by a person before they could be
read and the Court could not presume that such letters would be
opened in the ordinary course of business.
× Therefore, the defendant could not be taken to have known that the
letter would have been taken out of the envelope and there was
accordingly no evidence of publication of the libel in the case.

37
 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

× It was 1960 and the Civil Rights Movement was gaining strength. Civil
rights leaders ran a full-page ad in the New York Times to raise funds to
help civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Sixty well-
known Americans signed it. The ad described what it called “ an
unprecedented wave of terror” of police actions against peaceful
demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
× What it described was mostly accurate, but some of the charges in the ad
were not true. For example, the ad said that police “ringed” a college
campus where protestors were, but this charge was exaggerated. The ad
also contained the false statement: “When the entire student body
protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall
was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission.”
× L.B. Sullivan was one of three people in charge of police in
Montgomery. He sued the New York Times for libel (printing something
they knew was false and would cause harm). The ad did not mention
Sullivan’s name. But Sullivan claimed that the ad implied his
responsibility for the actions of the police. He said that the ad damaged
his reputation in the community. 38
 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

× In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in

favor of the New York Times.
× In order to prove libel, a “public official” must show that the
newspaper acted “with ‘actual malice’–that is, with knowledge that
it was false or with reckless disregard” for truth.
× Free and open debate about the conduct of public officials, the
Court reasoned, was more important than occasional, honest factual
errors that might hurt or damage officials’ reputations.

39
Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Sweta Lakhani
• Every human being buy a variety of goods and services in their
day to day life.
• Whatever they buy have to pay for it and derive satisfaction
from its consumption and use.
• But sometimes they don’t feel satisfied with the product they
buy.
• They may be on the account of :
1. Poor quality of the product
2. Overcharging
3. Lower quantity of contents
4. Misleading advertisements
Introduction

• The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act) received the

President's assent on 9 August 2019 which has replaced the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
• The Act aims;
1. at protecting and strengthening the rights of the consumers by
establishing authorities,
2. imposing strict liabilities
3. penalties on product manufacturers,
4. misleading advertisers,
5. providing additional settlement of consumer disputes through
mediation.
Concept of consumer protection
Ways and means of consumer protection
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Sec 9: Rights of Consumer
Right to Safety
Right to be informed/ right to
representation
Right to Choose
Right to be heard
Right to seek redressal
Right to consumer education
Sec 2: Consumer
• Under the new Act, "consumer" is defined as a
person who "buys any goods" and "hires or
avails of any service"
• for consideration but does not include a person
who obtains goods for resale or goods or
service for any commercial purpose.
• The Act seeks to widen the scope of this
definition.
• Thus, a consumer will now mean any person
who "buys any goods" and "hires any services"
which shall include both online and offline
transactions through electronic means,
teleshopping, direct selling or multi-level
marketing
Goods and Services
• Translate handouts for parents for whom English is a second
language.

• Handouts might include:

o A list of school phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and Web site
addresses.
o Copies of classroom and school policies.
o A list of materials that children will need for class.
Reliefs
 "electronic service provider"
• The concept of "electronic service provider"
which is defined as a person who provides
technologies or processes to enable a product
seller to engage in advertising or selling goods
or services to a consumer and includes any
online marketplace or online auction sites. (Sec
2(17))
•Further, an electronic service provider is now
included under the definition of a product seller.
(sec 2(37))
•These online marketplaces and auction sites can
now be held in product liability action under the
circumstances as stated in Section 86 of the Act.
 Introduction of "e-commerce"
•The Act has inserted the definition of "e-commerce" which
means buying or selling of goods or services including
digital products over digital or electronic network.
• Section 94 of the Act refers to the prevention of unfair
trade practices in e-commerce and direct selling and also
deals with protection of interest and rights of consumers.
•Inclusion of the concepts relating to e-commerce along
with the prescribed liabilities has broadened the scope of
the Act.
•By including e-commerce within its purview, the Act seeks
to protect the rights of the e-consumers and also enables
them to proceed against the e-commerce websites in the
event of any infringement or violation.
 Section 2(28)
false and misleading advertisement

• The Act has defined the term " misleading advertisement" in relation to any
product or service as,
• "an advertisement which falsely describes the product or service
• which gives a false guarantee and is likely to mislead the consumer
• as to the nature substance, quantity or quality of such product or service and
conveys an express or implied representation
• which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider, would
constitute an unfair trade practice and shall also include information which is
concealed deliberately"
Penalties for Misleading
Advertisement
Sec 84,85: Product liability
1. A key concept on "product liability" has been introduced by
the Act wherein a product liability action may be brought by a
complainant against ;

 a product manufacturer,
 product service provider or
 product seller,

1. for any harm caused to the complainant on account of a

defective product.
2. The Act provides a breakup of the liabilities of the product
manufacturer, product service provider and product seller and
also circumstances under which they are not liable.
Product Liability
Alternate Dispute Resolution
Chapter V
E-Complaints
Endorsers Liability