Comparison: UK v/s India Product Liability Law | Legal Service India – Law Articles

While various provisions previously existed to safeguard consumer rights, individuals often struggled to effectively assert their claims under those regulations. The enactment of India’s inaugural consumer-focused legislation, the Consumer Protection Act 1986, marked a significant victory for the public, as it established independent commissions to resolve disputes and created a dedicated department for consumer-related grievances.

A further milestone was reached with the approval of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which prioritized protection against digital exploitation and modernized existing laws to be more consumer-centric. Similar advancements occurred in the United Kingdom with the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

This paper compares product liability law in India with that of the UK, which was introduced to align with European Union directives. Initially, this paper traces the evolution of product liability in India and examines how courts addressed the concept prior to its inclusion in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Subsequently, it compares the legal frameworks across several parameters.

From the 18th century through the early 20th century, the principle of “caveat emptor,” or “let the buyer beware,” dominated consumer law. This was an era of modest lifestyles where most products were locally manufactured; if a customer suffered loss or damage from a defective item, they could easily approach the local manufacturer without needing court intervention.

However, the Industrial Revolution and subsequent mechanical advancements in production facilities shifted manufacturing and consumption patterns, compelling the state to introduce product liability laws to address the rising number of issues stemming from defective goods.

Today’s competitive, modern market for goods and services has undergone radical change. The rise of globally supplied products, increased international trade, and the growth of e-commerce have provided buyers with a vast array of choices and new delivery systems. Conversely, this has also exposed consumers to novel forms of fraud, unfair practices, and sales based on misleading information. Consequently, a robust legal structure became necessary to regulate manufacturers and service providers while protecting consumer interests.

India recently passed the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which includes a dedicated chapter on product liability. Before this act, no specific legislation comprehensively governed product liability in India; instead, such matters were handled under various laws, including contract law, the Sale of Goods Act 1930, and the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Although the Consumer Protection Act 1986 did not explicitly mention product liability, courts still applied the concept in their rulings. For instance, in H.S Guruja Rao Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Ors., the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission specifically utilized the term “product liability.”

In that case, the complainant purchased a car from a dealer, but the engine exploded and caught fire shortly after the ignition was engaged. Upon inspection, while it could not be conclusively proven that the accident resulted from a manufacturing defect, the commission noted that such a cause was highly probable.

The commission referred to English precedents, which established that in product liability cases, a purchaser does not need to prove a specific manufacturing defect. Instead, they may rely on circumstantial evidence to infer that an accident was caused by a defect—whether identifiable or not—that remained latent until specific conditions triggered a failure. Following the ratio of these English cases, the court ruled in favor of the complainant and held the company liable.

Similarly, in Ram Nath Mishra Vs. Bharat Krishi Corporation and Ors., the UP State Consumer Dispute Commission held that even though the CPA 1986 lacked a specific provision for manufacturing defects, such flaws fell under the definition of “defect” in section 2(1)(f). Thus, while the CPA 1986 did not contain a formal product liability principle, it was effectively applied in many cases through similar provisions.

Section 84 1(a) and 84 1(b) of the CPA 2019 state that a product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action if the product contains a manufacturing defect or is defective in design. This aligns with the general definition of “defect” under the CPA 1986, which includes any fault, imperfection, or shortcoming in quality, quantity, potency, purity, or standard required by law or contract, as confirmed in the Ram Nath Mishra case.

The 1986 Act holds any manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer accountable for injuries caused entirely or partially by defective goods. This demonstrates that even without a formal product liability framework, manufacturers could still be held liable for their actions.

According to Indian law, a “product” is any article, good, substance, or raw material—whether solid, liquid, or gaseous—that possesses value and is supplied as a whole or a component for trade or commerce. This definition excludes human tissues, blood, blood products, and organs.

Under Part 1 of the UK’s Consumer Protection Act 1987, a product is defined as any good or electricity, including items used as components or raw materials in other products. However, unlike in India, human blood is included in the definition of a product under English law, as established by the Queen’s Bench in A and others v. National Blood Authority and another.

In India, a product liability action can be asserted against the manufacturer, service provider, or seller, depending on the circumstances of the case. A manufacturer can be held liable even if they demonstrate they were not negligent or fraudulent regarding product warranties.

A product seller may be held liable if they altered the product, exercised substantial control over packaging or design, or failed to provide accurate information regarding inherent dangers. Sections 84, 85, and 86 of the CPA 2019 detail the specific provisions under which manufacturers, service providers, and sellers can be held accountable.

Under English law, liability is primarily attributed to the producer, which includes those who “won or abstracted” the product or processed it. A person who merely packs an unprocessed product is not considered a producer, unless they cannot identify the person who supplied the product.

According to section 2(35) of the Indian Act, product liability refers to “the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective product manufactured or sold or by a deficiency in services relating thereto.” In English law, Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 states that product liability arises “where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product.”

Section 2(10) of the Indian law provides an exhaustive definition of “defect,” referring to any flaw or imperfection in the quality, quantity, potency, purity, or standard of a product that must conform to applicable laws or claims made by the trader.

Under Section 3(1) of the English Act, a product is defective if its safety falls short of what people are “generally entitled to expect.” Safety includes the risk of death, personal injury, and property damage. Section 3(2) outlines factors to consider when interpreting this, including how the product was marketed, the use of warnings, what can reasonably be expected of the product, and the time of supply. The phrase “generally entitled to expect” provides a broad definition that encompasses a wide range of potential defects.

Under the CPA 2019, a product seller is not liable if the product was misused, altered, or modified. A manufacturer is not liable for failing to warn of hazards that are obvious or well-known to consumers. Furthermore, a manufacturer is not liable if they provided proper instructions and warnings, particularly if the product was bought for workplace use, required expert supervision, or if the complainant was under the influence of alcohol.

English law provides defenses if the defect is due to compliance with legal requirements, if the defendant did not supply the product, or if the defect did not exist at the relevant time. Section 4(1)(e) provides a “development risks” defense, where a manufacturer is not liable if the state of scientific and technological knowledge at the time of supply was not such that the defect could have been discovered.

This defense remains controversial, as it creates a potential loophole in compensation coverage. Whether a product was defective at the relevant time remains a matter for the courts to decide.

In the case of Abouzaid v. Mothercare Ltd., a child’s eye was damaged by a defective strap. In a 2000 judgment, the court held the manufacturer liable, stating that even if the damage could not have been foreseen in 1990, it remained a defect. This ruling was supported by the inclusive nature of the term “safety that people generally are entitled to expect.”

This paper has traced the evolution of the product liability doctrine in India and examined the jurisprudence developed through court judgments. It then compared the doctrinal positions of India and England, highlighting both similarities and differences.

Based on this comparison, I suggest that India should reconfigure its definition of product liability to align more closely with the English definition, thereby widening the scope of the law. This would be more consumer-oriented, allowing for a broader spectrum of cases involving consumer exploitation to be addressed.