Skip to main content

Note on Product Liability in India

Note on Product Liability in India

The concept of product liability has evolved over the years as can be seen by the shift in maxims followed from “Caveat Emptor’ i.e. Buyer Beware to “Caveat Venditor” i.e. Seller Beware.
DEFINITION:
“General obligation or liability of the producer or supplier of goods and services in order to adjust for the loss assosiated with its utilization, such as damage of property or personal injury. Usually, the affected party need not prove that the supplier or producer was negligent as the defect is associated with the product or service”[1]
-          Blacks Legal Dictionary , 2nd Edition
Thus, Products Liability, (as named in India) is the obligation imposed upon any manufacturer, wholesalers, vendors and distributors for any damage or injury caused to the consumer of such a good due to any defect or fault in the product. As it the duty of such manufacturer, wholesalers, vendor and distributor to deliver goods that are free of fault or any defect, in case defective or faulty goods are delivered, it is their duty to make good any harm incurred due to it.
Examples of defective include faulty auto brakes, contaminated baby food, exploding bottles of beer, flammable children's pyjamas or lack of label warnings and the like.
The concept of product liability is borrowed from the Law of Torts, and covered by the Indian legislations under the laws enumerated later.
Law of Torts and product liability is explained below:-
1.      Negligence: the failure to exercise due and reasonable care in the ordinary course of business. The aggrieved must prove:-
a.       Legal duty of care upon the wrongdoer
b.      The duty was owed to the aggrieved
c.       There was breach of duty of care
d.      Damage incurred by aggrieved was a result of negligence on part of wrongdoer
The Consumer Protection Act, covers negligence.
2.      Fraud/Misrepresentation/Deceit: the wilful misstatement made by the defendant as a result of which the aggrieved incurs injury or damage. Essentials :-
a.       False representation by wrongdoer
b.      Knowledge of falsity of statement
c.       Intention to deceive
d.      Loss suffered by aggrieved
Covered under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act.
3.      Strict Liability: it is the absolute liability placed upon the wrongdoer regardless of his intention. The injury caused is enough to claim relief, the presumption of court is in favour of the aggrieved, thus burden of proof upon the wrongdoer to prove his innocence. In case of products liability, the following conditions are to be fulfilled:-
a.       The wrongdoer is the manufacturer of the defective product
b.      The product contained defects when purchased by the aggrieved
c.       The defect existed when the defendant sold the product 
4.      Warranty: The implied specifications of the product or the minor terms of contact. The non-fulfilment of warranties cannot terminate the contract. Warranties are assentation’s made for a product by the seller, if the product is not up to the said assertments it is a breach of warranty. Relief in such cases include:-
a.        Compensation
b.      Replacement of defect
Covered under the Sale of Goods Act and the Indian Contract Act.
5.      Condition: A term of a contract on which the entire contract is based. The non-fulfilment of such term is considered a breach. Relief in such case is:-
a.       Termination of contract
b.      Damages    

Covered under the Sale of Goods Act

LAW REGULATING PRODUCTS LIABILITY:
As of today, there is no one specific Act, regulating Products Liability, however suits for products liability  can be instituted for violation of rights under the following Acts, namely:-
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986[2]: The CPA, protects “consumers”, who are final users of a product. Commercial users, obtaining product as a raw material in furtherance to a work in progress cannot claim under the Act. The Act provides the manner[3] and procedure[4] to file the complaint in the district forum[5], or state commission[6], or national commission[7]  as follows:-
1.      complaint is received by the district forum, the district forum
2.      complaint may either be admitted or rejected within 21 days
3.      on admission of complaint a notice to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint, is issued within a period of 30 days
4.      the complaint is to be finally disposed of within a period of three months to five months
5.      appeal filed before the state commission or the National Commission shall be heard and finally disposed of within a period of 90 days
6.      relief can be in the nature of compensation for loss incurred
The limitation period[8] is fixed at 2 years from the date of cause of action.
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930[9]: The Act, applies to every buyer and seller of a good. The Act provides for sales to be made as per the description of the good[10] and that there is an implied condition regarding the quality of the goods[11], buyers right of inspection of goods[12] (if not inspected previously), and remedy for breach of warranty[13] . Thereby the Act presumes certain conditions in favour of the buyer.   
The Indian Contract Act, 1872[14]: The Act regulates contracts entered into. Provisions of the Act, relating to fraud[15] and misrepresentation[16] can be applied to the claim of products liability. The Act, pertains to provisions for breach of contract, wherein compensation for loss of breach[17]is provided for. Relief is in the nature of compensation for loss incurred.
Indian Penal Code, 1860[18]: The provisions pertaining to cheating[19], false weights and measures[20], adulteration [21](of foods and drugs), using false property marks[22] and trade-marks, can be applied to a suit for products liability. The Act provides that any dishonest concealment or deception is included within the purview of section 415 and is therefore considered cheating.
Other Legislation regulating specific goods:
1.      Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Criminal liability imposed upon the manufacturer of drugs and cosmetics if they do not prescribe to the laid down standards.
2.      Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Act lays down the food safety standards to be followed. In case of non-fulfilment of any provisions, penalties in the form of fine or imprisonment of both may be imposed.
3.      Essential Commodity (supply) Act, 1955
4.      Legal Metrology Act, 2009: The Act lays down the standards to be adhered to, for the packaging, weight and measures of a product. If any mandatory declaration is found missing on the package a fine is levied.[23]
5.      Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marketing) Act
6.      Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act
The above mentioned laws impose criminal liability upon the manufacturer in the form of fine and or imprisonment for the violation of set standards of specific goods. 
RELEIF AVAILABLE:
1.      Compensation as a civil remedy
2.      Refund as a civil remedy
3.      Fine under the criminal law
4.      Imprisonment under the criminal law
CASE LAW:
Gladys Escola, Respondent, v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno (a Corporation)[24]
The landmark case on negligence. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of California. Herein the aggrieved was a victim of a coke bottle bursting in her hand, as a result of which she suffered grievous injuries to the hand. Ordinarily a well-sealed bottle would not burst on its own unless the sealing method was defective. The Court held the respondent liable for negligence as there were no extraneous factors affecting the bottle, and negligence in packaging resulted in the injury.
Malay Kumar Ganguly v Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors.[25]
The husband of the deceased wife, brought a medical negligence suit against the doctor involved in the treatment of the deceased alleging that the treatment given resulted in the death of his wife.
Case of medical negligence, wherein the Hon’ Supreme Court of India held that:-
“For criminal prosecution of a medical professional for negligence, it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do”
PRODUCT LIABILITY AND THE DEFENCE SECTOR:
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) regulates the product procurement by and for the purposes of defence. There is a Defence Product Procedure (DPP), laid down for every such procurement, which is revised annually. 
As per the 2013 DPP format, the following provisions impose product liability on vendors:
25a. ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’: (xi) The Indian vendors participating in such cases shall remain liable to achieve mandatory indigenous content requirements for this category as laid down under paragraph 4(c) of the DPP.
Vendor Responsibility: 5.1 The Vendor of the equipment under the main procurement contract will be responsible for the fulfillment of offset obligations. The Vendor may allow his Tier-1 sub-vendors under the main procurement contract to discharge offset obligations, to the extent of their work share (by value), on behalf of the main/prime vendor. However, overall responsibility and liability for the full discharge of offset obligations shall continue to remain with the main/prime vendor. Any shortfall by the Tier-1 sub-vendor shall be made good by the main/prime vendor, failing which the vendor shall be liable for penalty and debarment as stipulated in the offset guidelines
General requirements 10. In Service Life/Shelf Life: The In Service Life/Shelf Life of the equipment (as applicable) shall be stipulated in the offer. In case of shelf life the relevant storage conditions should be clearly specified. The vendor is required to give details of reliability model, reliability prediction and its validation by designer/ manufacturer to ensure reliability of stores throughout shelf life. The efficacy of reliability model/prediction/validation would be verified during technical and environmental evaluation as indicated in Para 24 (b)
Technical Parameters 33. Before the contract is finalized, the vendor would be required to provide Quality Assurance Plans (QAP) i.e. tests undertaken to assure quality & reliability and provide the Standard Acceptance Test Procedure (ATP). Director General of Quality Assurance (DGQA)/DGAQA/DGNAI (or the concerned Quality Assurance agency, as applicable) reserves the right to modify the ATP if necessary. The equipment supplied by the vendor would be accepted subject to evaluation and clearance by the DGQA. The vendor would be required to provide all test facilities at OEM premises for acceptance inspection by the DGQA team as also train their team. The details in this regard will be coordinated during the negotiation of contract
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY Spares 5. On Board Spares (OBS). The Bidder is required to provide sufficient OBS for all equipment for on board repairs, scheduled servicing & maintenance of all equipment falling due till (as specified) years of the operation of the vessel after warranty, along with the delivery of the vessel in conformity to the requirement of spares/ tools/ jigs stipulated in the exploitation/ maintenance document of respective equipment/ system. To this purpose, the Seller is required to provide Manufacturer’s Recommended List of On board Spares (MRL-OBS) in format provided at Enclosure 4A. The Seller shall satisfy himself of the suitability and sufficiency of the MRL-OBS. The Seller shall establish the range and depth of spares required to support the ship level repair and maintenance for the prescribed period. The Seller shall also be fully liable in respect of the quality and quantity of the recommended spares and must supply any shortfall of spares without any financial responsibility or liability to the Buyer. A certificate of sufficiency for MRL-OBS has to be submitted by the bidder along with the technical bid.





[2] http://ncdrc.nic.in/1_1.html, last visited 14/05/15
[3] Section 12
[4] Section 13
[5] Section 11
[6] Section 17
[7] Section 21
[8] Section 24A
[10] Section 15
[11] Section 16
[12] Section 41
[13] Section 59
[15] Section 17
[16] Section 18
[17] Section 73 and 74
[18] lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report156Vol2.pdf, last visited 14/05/2015
[19] Section 415
[20] Section 265
[21] Section 272 and 274
[22] Section 481
[23] as per Rule 39 of the Standards of weights and measures packaged commodity rules
[24] 24 Cal.2d 453
[25] (2010)2SCC(Cri)299

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

EXPULSION OF A MEMBER

The termination or cessation of a membership can be undertaken pursuant to section 41 of the Companies Act, 1956, whereby the member may be expelled from membership. 1.       Public Limited Company The concept of expulsion of a member of a company by the Board of Directors, pursuant to alteration of articles by special resolution [1] had been attended to by the erstwhile Department of Company Affairs (“ Department ”) vide Circular No. 32/75 [2] (“ Circular ”). The Department opined that [3] “ …….that amendment of articles of association of a company providing for expulsion of a member of the management is opposed to the fundamental principles of the company's jurisprudence and is ultra vires the company. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this case [4] , even though pertaining to the refusal of a company to the admission of a person as a member of the company, are applicable even with greater force to a case of expulsion of an existing member. …

Express Industry Council of India Vs Jet Airways (India) Ltd. & Others.

Nature of Case: Inquiry under section 19(1)(a) Competition Act, 2002 Case No. 30 of 2013 Brief Summary: The Competition Commission of India (“ CCI ”) imposed penalties totalling Rs 258 crores (INR 2.58 billion) on Jet Airways, IndiGo and SpiceJet for cartelisation in fixing fuel surcharge (“ FSC ”) for transporting cargo. The inquiry was initiated against 5 airlines namely Jet Airways, IndiGo Airlines, Spice Jet, Air India, and Go Air based on a complaint filed by Express Industry Council of India under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ( “Act” ) in May 2009 against the FSC for transporting cargo by Airline companies. The principal issue was whether the Airlines had operated in a “concerted action” by overcharging for cargo freight. Though the enquiry conducted by the Director General (“ DG ”) found that the Airlines were not resorting to any collusion, the CCI rejected the DG’s findings and penalised three carriers, namely Jet Airways, InterGlob

Family Office- Indian Scenario

What is a ‘Family Office’? A Family Office or a Single Family Office (SFO) is a professional platform dedicated to investing financials of high and ultra high net worth individuals, with the objective to manage and protect the wealth of a family through private wealth management advisory outfits. A Family Office allows the family to pursue its own customized wealth management approach and guarantees the highest degree of confidentiality, thereby giving such individuals greater control over their finances. A Family Office provides solution for building, preserving and transferring family wealth and legacy. The concept of Family Office is limited to high and ultra high net worth individuals, as they have higher risk-taking capabilities. Another common concept is Multi-Family Offices (MFO) which provides a variety of financial and non financial services including tax and estate planning, risk management, objective financial counsel, trusteeship, lifestyle management. As