Before the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, product liability in India relied on common law principles and contractual remedies under various statutes.[1]Although the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, addressed defective goods and deficiency in service, it lacked specific and comprehensive provisions on product liability. Therefore, consumers frequently encountered difficulties in establishing manufacturer or seller liability, despite judicial efforts to provide relief through the application of common law doctrines and the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
The main reason behind this problem was the dominance of the doctrine of caveat emptor, a Latin phrase meaning “let the buyer beware.”[2] According to this principle, it was the buyer’s duty to exercise due diligence and inspect goods for quality and fitness before purchase. Based on this, consumers often struggled to prove manufacturer negligence or defects under tort law.[3] To address this problem, the 2019 act marked a significant shift from caveat emptor to caveat venditor, meaning “let the seller beware.”[4] The seller-beware concept acknowledges that sellers often have more knowledge about the product, thereby shifting responsibility to them, especially with complex products.[5] This blog examines the evolution of product liability in India by analysing the legal position before and after the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Meaning of product liability
The meaning of product liability as per section 2(34) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, means 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 to it.[6]
Product liability before the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Indian law did not directly recognise product liability as an independent legal concept before the 2019 Act. However, consumers were not entirely without remedies. The judiciary addressed issues arising from defective products and deficiencies in services by applying provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and various relevant statutes. In the case of Spring Meadows Hospital vs. Harjol Ahluwalia[7]A 10-year-old boy, Harjol Ahluwalia, was admitted to Spring Meadows Hospital for treatment of typhoid. During his stay, one time, a nurse administered an injection without the supervising doctor being present. Because of this careless act, a child fell into cardiac arrest, causing him to fall into a coma and suffer permanent brain damage. The boy’s parents filed a suit requiring justice for the hospital’s negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court, after examining the facts, found that the hospital and its staff had clearly failed in their duty of care, and this negligence caused irreversible harm to the child. The court held the hospital and the medical staff liable for gross medical negligence.
Another important aspect was the Court’s recognition of who counts as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. It ruled that not only the patient (the child) but also the parents who paid for the treatment are consumers with legal rights to claim compensation.[8]
The following are the legal provisions under which product liability claims were addressed before the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986
As product liability under the 1986 Act[9] wasn’t explicitly defined; it derived from general consumer rights. The consumers seek compensation for faults, imperfections, or shortcomings in product quality, quantity, or standard through the concept of defect (Section 2 (1) (f)) and deficiency (Section 2 (1) (g)). Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, empowers consumer forums to grant remedies for defective goods or deficient services.
- Sale of Goods Act, 1930
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, addressed product liability through implied conditions and warranties regarding the quality, fitness, and description of goods. The contractual rights of the buyer against defective goods or services are established through sections 12, 14, 15, and 16 of the SGA.[10]
- Indian Contract Act, 1872
Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, liability arises from a breach of contract, as Section 10 outlines the fundamental conditions for a valid agreement and Section 37 mandates the performance of obligations under the contract. For a breach of contract, the consumer could claim damages under section 73 of the Act.[11]
- Law of Torts
Product liability under the law of torts holds manufacturers responsible when a defective product causes harm to consumers.
- Other Specific Legislations
5.1 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006[12]
This Act applies to food business operators and manufacturers of hazardous food under sections 26 and 27. Section 26 prescribes the responsibilities of food business operators, and Section 27 holds the liability of the manufacturer, packer, distributor and seller.
5.2 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940[13]
Section 18 of the Act prohibits the manufacture and sale of substandard as well as misbranded, adulterated or spurious drugs and cosmetics. Under section 27 of the Act, penalties are provided for violating this provision.
Product Liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Chapter VI of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines product liability and codifies responsibility for any harm caused by the lack of services and faulty products. Under this act, the product manufacturer, the product seller and the product service provider are held accountable. In National Restaurant Association & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr…,[14] In this case, the Delhi High Court ruled that a service charge or tip is a voluntary payment made by the client and cannot be imposed on meal bills by hotels or restaurants. Thus, the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s 2022 rules, which forbid hotels and restaurants from charging service fees “automatically or by default” on meal bills, were upheld by the Court. The court observed that “A service charge or tip is a voluntary payment by the customer. It cannot be mandatory. The practice undertaken by the restaurant establishments of collecting a service charge, that too on a mandatory basis, in a coercive manner, would be contrary to consumer interest and is violative of consumer rights.”[15]
The following are the legal provisions under which product liability claims were addressed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Product Liability Action
Section 82 states that a product manufacturer, seller, or service provider can be sued for harm caused by a defective product or deficient service.[16]
- Liability of Product Manufacturer/Seller/Service Provider
Section 83 makes all three (manufacturer, seller, service provider) jointly and severally liable.[17]
- Liability of Product Manufacturer
Section 84[18] specifies conditions for manufacturer liability, including:
- Manufacturing defects,
- Design defects,
- Deviation from specifications,
- Non-conformity with express warranty,
- Failure to provide adequate instructions or warnings.
- Liability of Product Seller
Section 85[19] holds sellers liable if they:
- Knew or had reason to know of the defect,
- Did not exercise due diligence to ascertain the defect,
- Sold the product with a manufacturing defect.
- Liability of Product Service Provider
Section 86[20] covers deficient services leading to harm.
Exceptions & Defences available
Section 87[21] allows sellers to avoid liability if the product wasn’t misused, warnings were provided to employers/experts, or the consumer was under the influence of alcohol/drugs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clearly established that product liability in India has undergone a significant shift with the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Before 2019, product liability was not recognised as an independent legal concept. Consumers relied on different statutes for obtaining remedies. The doctrine of caveat emptor was increasingly incompatible with modern times.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, marks a departure from this position by introducing a comprehensive product liability under Chapter VI. By moving towards the principle of caveat venditor, the 2019 Act realigns legal responsibility with those who possess greater control and economic power in the supply chain. At the same time, the inclusion of statutory defences under Section 87 reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that liability is not imposed arbitrarily.
Author(s) Name: Navneet
References:
[1] Ayush Kulshresth & Rhythm Kataria, ‘Product Liability Laws in India’ (Manupatra, 27 December 2021)
<https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Product-Liability-Laws-in-India> accessed 12 January 2026
[2] ‘The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor: Buyer Beware Explained’ (Vedantu) <https://www.vedantu.com/commerce/doctrine-of-caveat-emptor> accessed 11 January 2026
[3] The Doctrine of Caveat Emptor: Buyer Beware Explained’ (n 2)
[4] Aishwarya Agrawal, ‘Caveat Venditor’ (lawbhoomi, 16 July 2024) < https://lawbhoomi.com/caveat-venditor/#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20Caveat%20Venditor,sellers%2C%20ensuring%20a%20fairer%20marketplace> accessed 13 January 2026
[5] Aishwarya Agrawal (n 4)
[6] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s 2(34)
[7] Spring Meadows Hospital v Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39 (SC)
[8] Ritu Sharma studying at Geeta Institute of Law, ‘Spring Meadows Hospital vs Harjol Ahluwalia : A landmark judgement in Indian Medical Negligence Jurisprudence’ <https://lawfullegal.in/spring-mead ows-hospital-vs-harjol-ahluwalia-a-landmark-judgement-in-indian-medical-negligence-jurisprudence/> accessed 10 January 20
[9] The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
[10] The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
[11] The Indian Contract Act, 1872
[12] The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, s 26, 27
[13] The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, s 18, 27
[14] National Restaurant Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr [ W.P.(C) 10683/2022] along with W.P.(C) 10867/2022
[15] National Restaurant Association & Ors. v/s Union of India & Anr…
<https://nupurljlnu.com/?p=5030#:~:text=V/s%20UNION%20OF%20INDIA%20&%20ANR%E2%80%A6,-Leave%20a%20Comment&text=In%20a%20key%20judgment%2C%20the,is%20violative%20of%20consumer%20rights.%E2%80%9D> accessed 13 January 2026
[16] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s 82
[17] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s 83
[18] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s 84
[19] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s 85
[20] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s 86
[21] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s 87
