The substantive civil laws that relate with product liability laws in India are:

1. the Sale of Goods Act 1930.(SGA)

2.the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (CPA)

3. the Indian Contract Act, 1872(ICA)

The CPA in a sense codifies the principles of product liability with respect to sale or supply of
defective product to consumers. However redressal under CPA is only available to aggrieved
parties who fall under the statutory definition of ‘consumer’, which includes person who have
purchased or hired goods or services for consideration and does not extend to purchase for resale
or consumer purposes.Aggrieved parties not being a consumer under CPA would be required to
seek alternative methods of grievances redressal through civil suit or under contractual liability.

Defences:

a. product being compliant with requisite statutory standards.

b. the product not being ‘defective’, and claims is under the CPA , then the defect not falling
within the prescribed definition under CPA.

c. if the claim is under CPA , then the purchaser of the product is not a ‘consumer’ as defined
under the CPA.

d. loss or injury is owing to negligence or by misuse by consumer or buyer, including

contributory negligence.

e. the consumer or buyer had examined the goods prior to purchase and accepted it, being
satisfied of its quality or specification.

f. contractually agreed disclaimers or limitations on warranties in terms of scope, period ,

recourse and ammount.

Indian courts have recognised the principle of contributory negligence. However where
defendant negligence makes the plaintiff less ‘circumspective’, plaintiff has not been held guilty
of contributory negligence.
The Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019 on 06.08.2019 to replace the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("1986 Act"). The President of India gave its assent to the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ("2019 Act") on 09.08.2019 and the same will come into force
on the date it is notified by the Central Government.

In India, the Supreme Court of India itself has defined the term ‘product’ in Collector of Central
Excise Duty v. Protein Products of India Ltd., as “anything produced or obtained as a result of
some operation or work.” A product is the item offered for sale. A product can either be a service
or an item.

A good refers to a tangible item received by the consumer from the trader or producer for a
considerable amount. Tangible is something that can be touched, seen and felt. The possession of
goods can be transferred from one person to another. Goods also have a duration of storage.

The consumer of a good, according to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1856, is
one who buys the good from the seller for a considerable amount that he haspaid, promised or
partially paid and partially promised. Any system of deferred or future payment will also qualify
the buyer to be a consumer. Any other person who, with the buyer’s permission, uses the good, is
also a consumer. However, those who purchase goods in order to sell them again or for a
commercial purpose, will be excluded from the definition of a consumer of a good.

Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines defect in goods. The defect is
defined as any imperfection, fault, a shortcoming in certain parameters of the good which are as
follows: Quality Quantity Purity Potency Standard

The above has a level that needs to be maintained by or under any law in force at that time.
Hence, if any good is not up to the mark or is faulty, that is, does not meet the mark of the laws
applicable in the particular period, it is defective.

Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute[1], Abhay Kumar Panda v. Bajaj Auto
Limited[2] and various other cases that resulted in major debates were initially filed as cases for
the defect in good. The former saw a defect in a machine while the latter saw a defect in a
vehicle purchased. Other prominent cases include Kevin Enterprise vs Joint Cit[3], and cases at
the Supreme Court, Union Of India (Uoi) vs Ratilal Jadavji[4] and Union Of India vs Behari Lal
And Co.[5]
Online shopping has turned disastrous to the consumer in cases like Anil Kumar v. M/s Naaptol
Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Gati Limited, Vinodkumar, Ernakulam Vs. Shoed Merchant,
Mumbai & Ebay India and the Chitra Vittal case

Defective goods can cause diseases and bodily disabilities as well, as seen in the world-famous
Grant v.Australian Knitting Mills.

Section 14= defective good

14(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;