Law of Torts

Class Notes
Module 1
# What is torts?
- Tort – French term ‘Tortum’ which means to twist
- Legal meaning – A wrong
- Tort is described as a wrongful act or an Infringement of a right leading to legal
liablity.
- It is civil action taken by one citizen against another Individual, state or body
Definitions of Torts: -
1. Salmond: Tort is a Civil wrong for which the remedy is unliquidated damages and
which is not exclusively the breach of Contract.
2. Winfield: Tortious liability arises from a breach of duty primarily fixed by law and
its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.
3. Street: Tort is the branch of Civil Law relating to the obligation imposed by operation
of law on all natural and artificial persons.
# Nature of Tort
1. Tort is concerned with the allocation of responsibilities for losses.
2. Tort is for fair allocation of Resources.
3. Law of Obligation
4. Corrective Justice and Distributive Justice
- Liability rectifies the injustice inflicted by one person on another – Corrective Justice
- Regulates the allocation of goods among people together with the grounds of such
allocations. – Distributive Justice
# Elements of Tortious Liability
1. Liability
- Breach of Duty
- Negligence
- Intentional Wrongdoing
2. Cause of Action
A Person has a cause of action when the person brings an action for a particular type
of wrongful conduct or inaction.
3. Damages
 Injury, Loss, deprivation of right
 Breach of Legal Right
4. Remedy
 A Remedy is a curative action like damages, injunction
 There is no wrong without a remedy
 Want of Right and Want for remedy are reciprocal
Difference between the Law of Tort and the Law of Torts
 1. Law of Tort is a general liability that originates from the violation of duty
determined by law.
2. The wrongful act must occur from a specific tort that is already been established
under the law of torts.
# Wider and Narrower Theory by Winfield LAW OF TORT (Keyword: Duty)
1. According to this theory, all injuries done by one person to another are torts, unless
there is justification recognized by law.
2. The theory was propounded by Winfield in 1963
3. Wherever unjustifiable harms happen the person can claim remedies
4. According to this theory, tort consists not merely of those who have acquired specific
names but also includes the wider principle that all unjustifiable harm is tortuous.
5. According to this philosophy of this theory it enables the courts to create new torts.
6. Winfield concludes that the law of tort is growing from time to time.
7. EXAMPLE: MC MEHTA VS UOI
# Pigeon–Hole Theory By Salmond
1. The theory was proposed by Salmond.
2. According to this theory, there is a definite number of torts outside which liability in
tort does not exist.
3. If the defendant's wrong doesn’t fit in any pigeon hole then he/she can’t claim remedy.
4. Kasturi Lal vs State of UP
Right in REM – Torts Right in Personam - Contract
1. This right protects interest against the 1. This right protects an interest solely
world at large. against determinate individuals.
2. It is called “Real right” not to 2 It is also called “personal right” duty
interfere with other’s right. imposed upon determinate individuals.
3. It is available against an open or 3 It is available only against a specific
indefinite class of persons. persons or person

TORT VS CONTRACT

TORT CONTRACT
1. Duty arises from general law or from a 1. Duty arises from contract/agreement
particular situation or with consent of parties
2. Damages are unliquidated 2. Damages are Liquidated

3. Damages are not having certain 3 Damages claimed as per rule, which
restrictions. equivalent to injury
4. Violation arises from law, duty 4 Breach arises from consent, performance,
and conditions.
# Tort VS Quasi Contract
1. Quasi-contract is a legal obligation imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. It is
mentioned in Sec 71, Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2. Difference: In torts, Duty in General, While in Quasi Contract, Duty is towards a
specific person. Torts are uncodified while Quasi Contract is codified under
the section 71, of Indian Contracts Act, 1872
3. Similarities: In torts, Duty is imposed by law. In Quasi Contract too, Duty is imposed
by law not undertaken by parties individually.

Tort Crime
1. Tort is a Breach of Duty to an 1) Crime is breach of Duty to the public
individual. where offender is punished by the
State.
2. Private Law 2) Public Law

3. Action for Damages 3) Action for Punishment

4. Object: Indemnification 4) Object: Prevention of offenses to

(Reformative approach) promote the public interest (Punitive
approach)
5. Actions raised by Party in Civil Court 5) Action raised by state in criminal court

# How did Torts come to India?

 Under Hindu and Muslim Law Tort had a much narrower conception. The punishments of crimes in
these systems occupied a more prominent place than compensation for wrongs.
 The law of torts as administered in India in modern times is the English law as found suitable to
Indian conditions.
 Its origin is linked with the establishment of Mayor’s courts in India after the arrival of the East India
Company post 1601. The first British Courts established in India (1726) were the Mayor’s
 Courts in the three presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay,
 Supreme Courts (1774) , High Courts (1862)
 Section 9 of CPC, enables a civil court to try all suits of civil nature and confers jurisdiction to apply
law of torts as principles of equity justice and good conscience, Constituion of India- writs, PIL
Q Evolution of Law Of Torts
Wider Theory
Narrower Theory
Come to India
# Legal Maxims for Determination of Tortious Liability
1. Injury Sine Damno
- Injury without Damage
 - It means violation of a legal right without causing any harm
- It is actionable per se (No need to prove the Act)
- Case Law Ashby Vs White (1703); Bhim Singh Vs State of J&K
- The nominal damages are available when the Injury does not cause any actual or
pecuniary damage.
- Injury also considered on any interference in right.
- If there has been a violation of legal right, the same is actionable, whether as a
consequence, the plaintiff has suffered any loss or not.

2. Damnum Sine Injuria

- Damage without injury
- Damage without infringement of Legal Rights is not actionable
- No Liability arises merely on the ground of damage
- Exercise of Common Rights
- Case Laws: Gloucester Grammer School (1410); Ushaben V/S BhagyaLaxmi
Chitra Mandir

3. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

- Where there is right there is a remedy
- Where the Law is Silent/inadequate this maxim works as a remedy
- Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan
- Social Obligations / PIL
- It is the right of the injured person to claim Damages
- Court may invent remedy if they find necessary / This maxim may impose duty on
Judiciary, State, Executive.
# Rudul Sah Vs State of Bihar (1983)

MODULE 2: Standing of a person in Tort

- Oral Contracts are binding in India

- All persons have the capacity to sue and be sued in tort
- This, however a general rule and is subject to modification in respect of certain
categories of person
- Locus Standi
# Who can not sue
1. Convicts and Persons in Custody
Exceptions
- They are not restricted of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise posses.
- In case of Violence a convict can sue prison authorities/fellow prisoners
- Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration ( Sunil Batra the plaintiff claimed that he is
being tortured by the prison authorities)
2. Alien Enemy
- Under Indian Law An alien Enemy ( i.e. a person who is having a nationality or
residing in an enemy country) that person does not have a right to sue unless he/she
arrives under some public authority.
 - As per Sec. 83. Civil Procedure Code 1908, Alien enemies residing in India with
the permission of the Central Government, may sue in any court otherwise
competent to try the suit, as if they were citizens of India, but alien enemies
residing in India without such permission, or residing in a foreign country, shall not
sue in any such court.
- Case Law: Daimler Co Ltd v. Continental Tyres & Rubber Co ltd
- Manasseh Films co. v. Gemini Picture Circuit
3) Husband & wife
- According to Common Law, Husband and wife are considered to be one single person i.e
wife could not sue her husband and the husband could not sue her for any tort committed by
one against the other.
- These issues have been by and large removed by legislation by The Married Women’s
Property act, 1882 and The law Reform ( Married Woman Tortfeasor) Act, 1935
- According to Indian Law, In India the marriages are governed by personal laws and the
personal law do not affect the capacity or rights of spouses.
- The same issues as common law won’t arise in Indian law as these kind of arbitrariness are
covered under Article 14 in Constitution
- Ajay Hasia V. Khalid Mujib
4) Corporation:
- A Corporation is a separate legal entity established through particular acts thus its has a
separate entity as of its owners
- So, A Corporation can’t sue a person for tortious liability like assault and Battery
- Sunil Bharti Mittal v CBI
5) Unincorporated Associations
- These associations have no corporate existence and henceforth can not sue
6) Insolvent Person:
- A person who is unable to pay debts or has financial obligation is not eligible to sue any
other person.
- Howard V. Crowther

# Who Can not be sued

1) Minor
- The law of torts makes no special protection for minors as every exception is
covered under the Criminal Law.
2) Foreign Sovereign State
 - In India, Under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure a foreign state can not be
sued except with the consent of the Central Government.
- Consent comes in following reasons:
 If the foreign sate has instituted a suit in the court against the person desiring
to sue it
 If the trades are within the local limits of the Jurisdiction of the court
 Possession of disputed immovable property situate within those limits
 Has expressly or impliedly waived the privlige accorded to it.
3) Ambassadors
- According to Article 29 of International Conventions diplomats are not liable to be
arrested or detention and also immune from Civil or Criminal Prosecutions
- According to Article 41 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963
Consular officers are not liable to arrest/detention during pending trial – except in
case of grave crime and Pursuant to decision by competent Judicial Authority.
4) The State and the officers
- Article 300 of the Constitution of India states that UOI and the States of Union are
Juristic persons and they can sue and be sued in their names,
Sovereign Functions: The govt. can not be sued for policy decisions, legislative actions, and
judicial decisions.
Non–Sovereign Functions: The govt. can be sued for commercial activities, tortious acts and
breach of Contracts.
Rudul Shah vs State of Bihar
In case of any legal or Fundamental right Sovereign or Non – Sovereign function can’t be
applied
5) Lunatics
 A Lunatic who commits a tort while not in a healthy state of mind is shielded from
punishment.
 However, if such a person engages in tort activity while mentally sound and
mindful of the consequence of his acts, he may be held accountable

Module 3: Torts Against Human Being and Property

Defamation
Intentional Torts
# Defamation
Deming the value of the particular person with the due communication
Definition:
Winfield: ‘Defamation is the publication of the statement which reflects on a person’s
reputation and tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of
society.’
Section 356 , Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023
 1) Whoever by words is either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by
Visible representations.
2) Makes or publishes in any manner, any imputation concerning any person
( natural, Juristic, dead)
3) Intending to harm, or knowing, or having reason to believe that such imputation
will harm the reputation of such person is said to defame the person.
4) punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years or with a fine or with both.

# Essentials of Defamation
- The Statement must be defamatory
- It must refer to the claimant
+ The Plaintiff has to prove that the statement which is claimed to be defamatory actually
refers to him/her.
+ It is immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff if the person to
whom the statement was published could reasonably understand that the statement referred
to the plaintiff.
- It must be published
Jawaharlal Darda V/S Manohar Kapsikar
# Test of Defamatory Statement
 If the statement shall convey defamatory meaning to reasonable people ( who is not
done any wrong)
 The statement is reasonably offensive referring to Plaintiff
Rules:
1. Take natural meaning
2. Special reference is required for any Particular Statement
3. An Indirect Statement is not defamation unless the relation is established

# Nature of Defamation
- Protection of reputation, dignity, and privacy
- Differs from Insult
Defamation – Section 356 of BNS
Insult – Section 352 of BNS
Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives provocation to any person,
intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public
peace, or to commit any other offense, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
5) Actionable Claim
 6) Aggravating Circumstances which enhance damages
# Exceptions to Defamation
1. Mere opinion, critics and Mockery
2. Statement made with References
3. Mere Suspicion
4. Innuendo – An Indirect Remark about somebody or something usually suggesting
something bad or rude
DP Choudhary Vs. Manjulata 1997
# Types of Defamation
- Libel
 Writing
 Address to eye
 Any Contribution in publishing statement also actionable
 Permanent Form
 Actionable Per se

- Slander
 Statement in by speech or its equivalents
 Address to ear
 Actionable per se (India)
Exceptions to Slander
 Imputation of unchaste behavior to female
 Imputation of Incompetence, dishonesty in profession
 Imputation of Disease
 Imputation of criminal offence
1. These exceptions are justified subject to special reference made by a person
2. The special references has to be a proven purpose

# Indian Scenario
 Both Libel and Slander are Actionable
 Speak / Read/ Sign/ representation intending to harm the reputation of person
 Ironically Statement
 Disgraceful Statement
# Capital and Countries Bank v/s Henty, 1887
NL Shah vs Revabhai Patel
TRESPASS
 Torts against human beings and Property
 Breach of Peace
 Encroachment
# Nature
  Knowingly or Unknowingly
Trespass can occur either knowingly or unknowingly. The intent of the trespasser is
not always relevant; even an unintentional intrusion onto another's property can
qualify as trespass if it interferes with the property owner's rights. However,
intentional trespass may attract more severe consequences.
 Actionable per se
Trespass is actionable per se, meaning that the act of trespassing itself is sufficient to
bring a legal claim. The claimant does not need to prove actual damage to their
property or person to establish a case of trespass. The mere violation of their rights is
enough to seek remedies.
 Mere action is also amount to trespass

In law, the mere act of intrusion or unauthorized entry onto someone else's property
is sufficient to amount to trespass, regardless of whether any harm or loss is caused.
For example, walking onto someone's land without permission or placing an object
there constitutes trespass. These principles emphasize the strict liability nature of
trespass and protect the rights of individuals to exclusive enjoyment of their property.

# Forms of Trespass
 Trespass to Land
 Trespass to the person
 Trespass to goods
# Trespass to Land
- Essentials
1. Unauthorised Entry
2. Any Involuntary Trespass
3. Unjustifiable interference
4. Discharge of any material
5. Remedy Continuing trespass as it is
6. Dispossession

Types of Trespass to Land

- Ariel
- Continuous
- Animals
- Joint
Remedies to Trespass
1) Injunction
- Safeguarding further damages to the property
- Interim / Final Injunction order
- Interim Injunction is the temporary relief while even the Final Order can be seek in
the form of damages, specific performance, or a punishment.
 2) Damages
- It should be rational with respect to damages done
- Claimed by Joint Trespasser
3) Distress
- Remedy for the performance of Duty, Satisfaction of demand in rational with the
loss happened
# Defences to Trespass to Land
- Authority of Law
- Acts of Necessity
- Reasonable Self Defence
- Constructive Possession
 Lawful right to retain possession when one has it or acquire it
 Re-Entry on Land
 Immediate Right to possess
- Easements – Easement Act, 1882
 An easement is a non–possessor's right to use or enter onto the real property of
another without possessing it.
- Essentials
 Right to Support
 Right to Water
 Right to free access of light and air
 Right to way
 Right to Privacy

# Trespass to Goods
- Trespass to Goods Difference b/w trespass to Goods and Con.
- Conversion
- Detention
# Essentials to Trespass to Goods
- The Plaintiff must at time of trespass have the possession of goods Possession per
se/ remote Possession
- It is immaterial whether the injury is done by the defendant himself or by an
animal/object belonging to him – Direct/ Indirect Damage
- An action of trespass is actionable per se
White V. Morris, 1852 and Wickham Holdings Ltd V. Brooke House Motors,1967

# Conversion:
- Wrongful interference with the rights of possession and Person’s Goods
- Dispossession
- Injury shall be direct
- Unjustifiable denial of Plaintiff title and the denial is absolute in nature
- Trespass act + Guilty intention + Degree of harm = Conversion
 - Fouldes V. Willoughby
# Essentials of Conversion
1. A property is wrongfully taken
2. A property is wrongfully parted with
3. It is wrongfully sold
4. It is wrongfully retained
5. It is wrongfully sold
# Types of Conversion
1. Conversion by taking
- Anyone who without authority takes possession of another person’s goods with
intention of asserting domination.
- Damage is more
- Identity Change
Sometimes, the act of conversion involves a change in the identity or form of the
goods. For instance, if the goods are altered, consumed, or sold to a third party, it
becomes impossible to restore the goods to their original condition or return them
to the owner in their original state.
2. Conversion by Parting with goods
- If a man who is entrusted with goods of another, puts them into the hand of a third
person contrary to orders, it is conversion
- The giver and receiver will be liable as joint tortfeasor
- Lethbridge V. Phillips 1819
3. Conversion by Sale
- To make dispossession/Change of ownership
- Contractual Violation
- For own benefit or any other person is guilty of conversion
4. Conversion by Property being wrongfully restrained
- The plaintiff must proved that the movable property is in the possession of the
defendant and having demanded it back refuses to give it up
- Right of a Finder- possessor is presumed to be possessor where owner is
untraceable.
- Armory V. Delamirie

# Remedies
1. Order of Restoration
2. Damages
3. Re – Caption

# Detention
- Detention is the adverse withholding of the good of another- its similar to
conversion
- Specific recovery of chattels (tangible movable personal property)
 - wrongfully detained from the person entitled to possession of them - wrongful
detainer
- Remedies
- damages, restoration
- trover- to recover the value of stolen or wrongfully taken personal property. Trover
damages are based on the market value of the property at the time it was taken, plus
compensation for the loss of use

# Trespass to Person
- Polloack and Holmes (1881)
- Modern Law of Torts
- The concept of Intentional torts and Public wrong can be considered as Law of
Torts
- The Basic Nature of Intentional Tort is a Crime
# Kinds of Trespass to Person
- Malicious Prosecution
- Assault
- Battery
- False Imprisonment

1) Battery
- Intentionally/negligently causes physical abuse
- Transmission of Force must be direct
- Actionable per se
- All unpermitted Contacts
# Section 129 BNS 2023
- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in
order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause
injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use
criminal force to that other.
- Sec 131- improsonment up to 3 months, fine up to 1k
B V. An NHS Hospital Trust (2002)

2) Assault
- Intentional act that causes an apprehension of harmful act
- Often occur just before battery
- Fear of Violence and Abuse
- Anticipation of immediate violence
- The mental element – there must be an intention to frighten the claimaint
# Section 130, BNS 2023
 - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing
- it to be
- likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to
- apprehend that he
- who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force
- to that person, is said to commit an assault.
- Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may
give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or
preparations amount to an assault.
R V. Ireland
3) False Imprisonment
- Wrongful physical restrain
- Not necessary claimant should be in having knowledge
- Interference in the Liberty is actionable irrespective of any harm
- Restrain must be complete

4) Malicious Prosecution
Malicious Prosecution is malicious institutions against another of unsuccessful
criminal, or bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings, without reasonable or probable
cause.

Plaintiff has to prove:

- That person was prosecuted by defendant
- That the prosecution was instituted against him without any reasonable or probable
cause
- The proceedings are capable of terminating because of lack of subject matter
- The prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention
- Abuse of Law with wrongful point of fact
- He has suffered damage to his reputation or to safety of person, or to security of
his/her property.
Bolandanda Pemmaya vs. Ayaradara
Mohd. Amin V. Jogender Kumar Banerji 1947
# Damage
The plaintiff has to prove that he has suffered damage as
a result of his prosecution.

types of damage

a. the damage to a fame (scandalous matter)

b. damage to the person (life and liberty)

c. the damage to property (spend money to defend the case)

MODULE 4: LIABLITIES BASED ON FAULT

- Strict Liability
- Absolute Liability
# No Fault Theory (Strict Liability is based on this theory)
- ‘No Wrong’ but liability at fault
- Social Utility = Liability of Tortfeasor

The No-Fault Theory in tort law is an approach where a person may be held liable for harm
or damage caused to another without any requirement to establish "fault" or wrongful intent.
This theory is often applied in cases where the goal is to provide quick compensation to the
injured party, regardless of whether the person responsible acted negligently or with intent.

Here are some key elements of the No-Fault Theory:

1. No Wrong, Yet Liability: Under this principle, the tortfeasor (the person who caused the
harm) may still be held liable even if they did not act with negligence or wrongful intent. The
focus is on the outcome or damage caused, rather than the fault or mindset of the tortfeasor.

2. Social Utility and Liability: This concept is rooted in the idea that holding the tortfeasor
liable serves a broader social purpose, such as protecting individuals from harm or
promoting the fair distribution of losses. By assigning liability regardless of fault, the legal
system aims to create a sense of responsibility and ensure the injured party receives
compensation.

3. Right to Enjoy Property Without Creating Nuisance: The No-Fault Theory often upholds
the right to use and enjoy one's property but imposes limits to prevent activities that could
harm others. The right to enjoyment of property must align with the principle of avoiding
nuisance to neighbors or the public. In essence, one’s property use should not negatively
impact others' rights or well-being.

# Objectives of Liability
- To Impose Relief
 - To Prohibt Action
# Strict Liability
- Rylands Vs Fletcher, 1868
Facts:
# Nature of Strict Liability
- Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person
- Without intention or negligence
- Obliged to indemnify laws
# Essentials of Strict Liability
The doctrine of Strict Liability holds a person responsible for the harm caused by certain
activities, regardless of whether they exercised reasonable care to prevent the harm. This
doctrine applies especially in cases involving inherently dangerous or risky activities. Here
are the essentials of strict liability, organized by the main categories you've mentioned:
1. Perils
- Scale of Risk: Strict liability applies when an activity presents a high level of risk or
danger. The greater the potential harm or the likelihood of damage, the more likely strict
liability will be imposed.
- Damage as a Result of Mischief: For strict liability to apply, there must be actual damage
caused by the activity or item in question. This damage should stem from the inherent risks
associated with the activity.
- Foreseeable Damage: The harm or damage caused should be foreseeable. If a reasonable
person could predict the potential damage, strict liability can be applicable.
2. Escape
- Escape from Control: Strict liability often applies if something harmful escapes from the
defendant's control. For instance, if dangerous chemicals escape from a factory and cause
harm to the surrounding area, the factory owner could be strictly liable.
- **Defendant Control: Liability applies even if the escape occurs outside the defendant's
immediate occupation, as long as the defendant has control over the activity or object
causing the escape.
- **Unusual Risk**: The activity or substance involved must present an unusual or
extraordinary risk, as opposed to common risks associated with everyday activities.

### 3. **Natural and Non-Natural Use of Land**

- **Natural Use**: This refers to ordinary, reasonable, and typical use of land or property.
In cases of natural use, strict liability generally does not apply, as the activity is considered
part of normal land use.
- **Control over Object**: Even with natural use, the defendant is expected to have
control over the potentially harmful object or substance.
 - **Non-Natural Use**: This covers unusual, extraordinary, or inherently dangerous uses
of land. For example, storing large quantities of flammable substances in a residential area
would be considered non-natural use, triggering strict liability.
- **Ultra-Hazardous Activities**: Engaging in highly dangerous activities—such as using
explosives, handling toxic chemicals, or managing potentially dangerous animals—may
invoke strict liability due to the inherent risk involved.
- **Extraordinary Use of Land**: Any use of land beyond typical or ordinary use may fall
under strict liability, especially when it exposes others to heightened risk.
- **Lack of Duty of Care**: In strict liability cases, there is no requirement to establish
duty of care, as the focus is on the outcome rather than the defendant's conduct.

# Defences for strict Liability

1) Consent of Claimant
2) Act of Stranger
- Rickardia v. Lothian,1913
3) Statutory Authority
4) Act of God
5) Plaintiff’s own fault
- Ponting V. Noakes
6) Common Benefit

# Nature of Absolute Liability

- It is not about reasonable conduct but Social Justice
- Duty to Indemnify Loss
- Differ from Strict Liability
- Liability is fixed in absence of law
# Li

Vicarious Liability
# Nature
- Particular relation in enough to constitute a liability
- The core idea is a ‘Contract of Service’ to decide the liability
- Authorization of work is necessary
- Non–delegate duty

# Specific Torts
- Negligence
 Donoghue v/s Stevenson, 1893
Essentials of Negligence
- Duty of Care
o CAPRO TEST (Capro Industries V/s Dickhman)
 The Foreseeable Claimant
 Proximity (Between Cause & Action)
- Breach of Duty
o Failed to do Reasonable Conduct
o Proximity in Cause of Action and Breach
o Damage Cause
o Social Utility

- Consequent Damage
o Damage caused by Breach of Duty
o No remote Consequences

- Hydle, Byrne Co Ltd V/s Heller and Partners Ltd. 1964

# Scope of Liability
- Contributory Negligence
o Essentials
 Lack of Care
 Fault caused within the scope of risk
 Sharing of Loss as per the responsibility in damage.
 Davies v/s Mann

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

# Redressal Bodies
1. District Commission:
- Composition: President and not less than 2 members
- Jurisdiction: Upto 1 Cr.
- Qualification of President: Mentioned in 2020 Rules
A person who is qualified as a District Judge can be appointed as the President of
the District Commission.
- Qualification of Member:
Age: 35 Years
Educational Qualification: Any UG Degree
Experience: Not less than 15 Years of Experience in Consumer Affairs
- At least one member or the president should be a woman of the commission

2. State Commission:
 - Composition: President + 4 members
- Jurisdiction: 1 Cr – 10 Cr
- Qualification of the President: Section 43, A person should be Qualified as high
court Judge.
- Qualification of the Member:
Age: 40 Years
Educational Qualification: Any UG Degree
Experience: The person should be having atleast 10 years of experience as a
presiding officer in a district court or of any tribunal at an equivalent level.
A person should be having a minimum of 20 years in law, consumer affairs etc.

3. National Commission:
- Composition: President + 4 members
- Jurisdiction: More than 10 Cr
- Qualification of Judge: Qualified as Supreme Court Judge
- Qualification of Member:
Age: 40 Years
Educational Qualification: Any UG Degree
Experience: The person should be having atleast 10 years of experience as a
presiding officer in a district court or of any tribunal at an equivalent level.
A person should be having a minimum of 20 years in law, consumer affairs etc.

Disqualifications of Members/Presidents of the Commissions :

1. The Person has been convicted
2. The person has become insolvent
3. Unsound Mind
4. Scrutiny on the members, and if found guilty he/she can be removed
5. If the person is prejudice/bias against one party
# Complaint – Who can File a Complaint?
- According to Sec. 35
o The Consumer
o Any person who alleges unfair trade practices in respect of such goods and
services
o Any recognized Consumer Association
o Joint Complaint if the complaint(s) have the same interest
o The govt can also file a case
# Section 39 Findings
- Applicable to district, State, National Comissions
# Penalties of Non – Compliance of Orders
- Imprisonment of 1 month to 3 Years
- Fine from Rs. 25000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-
- Damages
# Mediation
# Product Liability Sec. 84 and Sec. 85
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT (AMENDED),2019
- 217 Sections
- 14 Chapters
- Chapter XI – Insurance of Motor Vehicles
- Chapter XII – Claims Tribunal