sLL.B.

DEGREE EXAMINATION, JANUARY 2016

First Semester
Paper III - TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
Time: Three hours
Maximum: 70 marks

PART A - (6 x 2 = 12 marks)
Answer any SIX questions.
1. M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (A.I.R. 1987 S.C.)
o This case established the absolute liability principle in India.
Following the Oleum Gas Leak from Shriram Industries, the
Supreme Court ruled that industries dealing with hazardous
substances must compensate victims, even without proof of
negligence. It reinforced the right to a clean environment under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Fraud of Servant
o If a servant (employee) commits fraud while acting within the
scope of employment, the master (employer) can be held
vicariously liable. However, if the fraud was committed for
personal gain and outside employment duties, the employer is
generally not liable. Liability depends on whether the fraud was
authorized, ratified, or closely connected to the employee’s
work.
3. Consequent Damage
o It refers to damage that naturally follows from an act or
omission. In tort law, it must be directly caused by the wrongful
act and be reasonably foreseeable. If the damage is too remote,
the defendant may not be held liable. Example: If a car accident
due to negligence leads to a pedestrian’s injury, the injury is a
consequent damage.
4. Motive
o Motive is the underlying reason or intention behind an action.
While motive is important in criminal law to establish guilt, it is

1
 usually irrelevant in civil cases like torts. For instance, in
defamation or negligence, the act itself is judged, not the motive
behind it. However, in malicious prosecution, motive plays a
crucial role.
5. Inevitable Accident
o An inevitable accident is an event that could not have been
prevented despite taking reasonable care. It occurs without
negligence or fault of the defendant. In cases like Stanley v.
Powell (1891), where a hunter accidentally shot another despite
precautions, the court ruled it as an inevitable accident, absolving
liability.
6. Innuendo
o In defamation law, an innuendo is a hidden or indirect
defamatory meaning in a statement. If words appear harmless but
have a defamatory implication understood by those familiar
with the context, it can be considered defamation. Example:
Saying someone "frequently visits certain places" might imply
they engage in unlawful activities.
7. Res Ipsa Loquitur
o A Latin term meaning "the thing speaks for itself," used in
negligence cases where the accident itself implies negligence. If an
event happens that would not normally occur without negligence,
the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. Example: A surgical
instrument left inside a patient is evidence of negligence under
this doctrine.
8. Damnum Sine Injuria
o It means "damage without legal injury." If a person suffers loss
but without violation of legal rights, no compensation is granted.
Example: A businessman loses customers because a competitor
opens a new shop nearby. Since no legal right is infringed, no
remedy exists.
9. Vicarious Liability
o It refers to the legal responsibility of one person for the acts of
another, especially in employer-employee relationships. If an
employee commits a wrongful act within the scope of

2
 employment, the employer can be held liable. Example: If a
delivery driver negligently injures someone while on duty, the
employer may be held accountable.
10. Malicious Prosecution
 It occurs when a person wrongfully initiates legal proceedings against
another with malicious intent and without reasonable cause. The
plaintiff must prove: (i) the case was false and ended in their favor, (ii)
malice was involved, and (iii) they suffered damages. Example: If A
falsely files a criminal case against B, and B is acquitted, B can sue for
malicious prosecution.

PART B - (2 x 14 = 28 marks)
Answer any TWO questions.
11. There is a definite number of torts outside which liability in tort does
not exist. Explain.
The statement that there is a definite number of torts outside which liability in
tort does not exist is not entirely accurate because tort law is not limited to a
fixed list of wrongs. Unlike criminal law, which defines offenses strictly
through statutes, tort law evolves based on judicial precedents and changing
societal norms.
1. Definition of Tort
A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or injury to a person, property, or
reputation and is redressable through compensation. Liability in tort arises from
three main grounds:
 Intentional wrongs (e.g., assault, defamation)
 Negligence (e.g., road accidents, medical malpractice)
 Strict and absolute liability (e.g., industrial disasters)
2. Evolution and Flexibility of Tort Law
Tort law is dynamic and has evolved over time through judicial decisions rather
than being confined to a fixed list. For example:
 Negligence was established as a principle in Donoghue v. Stevenson
(1932)

3
  Strict liability was introduced in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
 Absolute liability was developed in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
(1987)
Thus, courts continue to recognize new torts based on evolving societal needs,
such as privacy violations in the digital age and environmental torts.
3. Counterargument: Fixed Categories of Torts
Some argue that tort law is limited to recognized categories, such as:
 Personal wrongs (e.g., assault, defamation)
 Property wrongs (e.g., trespass, nuisance)
 Economic wrongs (e.g., fraud, misrepresentation)
However, the recognition of new forms of liability, like cyber defamation or
AI-related harm, proves that tort law expands beyond a fixed number of
torts.
4. Conclusion
Tort law is not confined to a strict, definite list of wrongs. Courts have the
power to develop new principles based on fairness and justice, making tort law
a flexible and evolving legal field.

12. Critically analyze the rule established in Donoghue Vs. Stevenson.

1. Introduction to Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
Donoghue v. Stevenson is a landmark case that laid the foundation for the
modern law of negligence. The House of Lords established that manufacturers
owe a duty of care to consumers, even in the absence of a contractual
relationship.
2. Facts of the Case
 Mrs. Donoghue’s friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for her.
 The bottle contained a decomposed snail, causing Mrs. Donoghue to
suffer shock and gastroenteritis.
 She sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for negligence.
 The case focused on whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to
consumers.

4
3. Lord Atkin’s ‘Neighbour Principle’
Lord Atkin formulated the Neighbour Principle, stating:
"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor."
A neighbor includes anyone closely affected by one’s actions, such as
consumers who rely on a product’s safety.
4. Significance and Expansion of the Rule
 Established duty of care in negligence law.
 Expanded liability beyond contractual relationships.
 Influenced consumer protection laws globally.
 Applied to various fields like medical negligence, defective products,
and professional liability.
5. Criticism of the Rule
 The case did not define clear limits on the duty of care.
 The test of foreseeability can be subjective and vague.
 Later cases, like Caparo v. Dickman (1990), imposed additional
requirements:
o Proximity between parties
o Just, fair, and reasonable imposition of liability
6. Conclusion
Despite criticisms, Donoghue v. Stevenson remains the foundation of
negligence law and continues to influence liability in product safety, medical
malpractice, and professional services worldwide.

13. Discuss the scope of the rule in Rylands Vs. Fletcher. Refer to Bhopal
Gas Leak Tragedy.
1. Introduction to Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
This case established the strict liability principle, holding that a person who
brings a hazardous substance onto their land is liable if it escapes and causes
harm, even without negligence.
2. Facts of the Case
5
  The defendant built a reservoir that leaked into the plaintiff’s coal mine.
 The escape of water caused damage to the plaintiff’s property.
 The court held the defendant strictly liable, even though he was not
negligent.
3. Essentials of Strict Liability
To apply Rylands v. Fletcher, the following conditions must be met:
1. Bringing a dangerous thing onto the land
2. Non-natural use of the land
3. Escape of the dangerous substance
4. Foreseeable damage
4. Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy (1984) and Absolute Liability
 The Bhopal Gas Leak was one of India’s worst industrial disasters,
caused by the leakage of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) from the Union
Carbide plant.
 Over 15,000 people died and thousands suffered long-term health
effects.
 The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) modified
strict liability into absolute liability, making industrial units fully liable
for hazardous accidents without exceptions.
5. Scope of Rylands v. Fletcher Today
 Used in environmental protection cases.
 Applied in cases of industrial pollution and oil spills.
 Expanded through absolute liability in India, removing exceptions.
6. Conclusion
While Rylands v. Fletcher established strict liability, modern developments like
absolute liability ensure that companies handling hazardous substances are
fully accountable for accidents like the Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy.

14. Discuss the constitution, composition, and jurisdiction of the District

Consumer Forum.

6
1. Introduction
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Forum) is
a quasi-judicial body established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to
resolve disputes between consumers and businesses.
2. Composition of the District Consumer Forum
 President: A retired or serving District Judge.
 Two Members: One of whom must be a woman.
 Members must have knowledge in law, commerce, economics, or public
affairs.
3. Jurisdiction of the District Forum
The jurisdiction of the District Forum is divided into:
1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
o Handles consumer complaints where the value of goods/services
does not exceed ₹50 lakhs.
2. Territorial Jurisdiction:
o The complaint can be filed where the opposite party resides or
conducts business or where the cause of action arose.
3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
o Cases involving defective products, unfair trade practices,
deficiency in services, etc.
4. Powers and Functions
 Order refund, replacement, or compensation to consumers.
 Impose penalties on businesses for unfair practices.
 Issue injunctions to prevent further malpractices.
5. Conclusion
The District Consumer Forum plays a crucial role in protecting consumer
rights by providing an accessible and cost-effective mechanism for resolving
disputes at the district level.

PART C - (2 x 15 = 30 marks)

7
Answer any TWO questions.
15. A manufacturer of Thums Up had sold to a retailer Thums Up in an
opaque bottle. The retailer resold it to 'W', who treated a woman of
her acquaintance to its contents. The bottle included the decomposed
remains of a snail which had found its way into the bottle at the
factory. 'W', a woman, was seriously ill in consequence and sued the
manufacturer for negligence. Decide the liability of the manufacturer.
1. Simple Facts of the Case
 A manufacturer sold Thums Up in an opaque bottle to a retailer.
 The retailer sold it to ‘W’, who shared it with a woman.
 The bottle contained a decomposed snail, causing ‘W’ serious illness.
 ‘W’ sued the manufacturer for negligence.
2. Version of the First Part (Plaintiff’s Claim)
 The plaintiff argues that the manufacturer was negligent in ensuring
product safety.
 Since the bottle was sealed and opaque, the consumer could not inspect
it.
3. Version of the Second Part (Defendant’s Argument)
 The manufacturer may argue no direct contract existed between ‘W’ and
the company.
 The contamination may have occurred after production, breaking the
chain of liability.
4. Evidence
 The snail’s presence in the bottle proves a lapse in quality control.
 The sealed opaque bottle shows the consumer had no means to check the
product.
5. Connected Law
 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) established that manufacturers owe a
duty of care to consumers.
 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in India protects consumers from
defective goods.

8
 6. Judgment
 The manufacturer is liable for negligence as they failed in their duty of
care.
7. Reason for Decision
 The product was defective at the time of sale.
 The consumer had no opportunity to inspect the contents.
8. Conclusion
 The plaintiff can claim compensation from the manufacturer.
9. Citation
 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
 Consumer Protection Act, 2019
16. In a speech at a public meeting, 'X', a member of Lok Sabha, makes
a defamatory statement about 'Y', who is also a member of Lok
Sabha. Can Y sue X?
1. Simple Facts of the Case
 ‘X’, a Lok Sabha member, made a defamatory statement about ‘Y’
(another MP) in a public speech.
 ‘Y’ wants to sue ‘X’ for defamation.
2. Version of the First Part (Plaintiff’s Claim)
 ‘Y’ claims that ‘X’ has harmed his reputation through a false statement.
3. Version of the Second Part (Defendant’s Argument)
 ‘X’ may argue that as an MP, he enjoys parliamentary privileges.
4. Evidence
 The speech transcript showing defamatory remarks.
 Public reaction and harm to ‘Y’s reputation.
5. Connected Law
 Article 105 of the Indian Constitution gives MPs immunity for
statements made in Parliament, but not outside.
 Defamation Law (IPC Section 499 & 500) applies to public speeches.

9
 6. Judgment
 ‘Y’ can sue because the defamatory statement was made outside
Parliament.
7. Reason for Decision
 Parliamentary privilege does not extend to public meetings.
8. Conclusion
 ‘X’ is liable for defamation, and ‘Y’ can seek damages.
9. Citation
 Article 105, Indian Constitution
 Defamation Law (IPC Section 499 & 500)
17. The plaintiff's husband died after being knocked down by a
government jeep that was driven rashly and negligently by an
employee of the state. At the time of the accident, the jeep was being
taken from the workshop to the collector's use. Whether the state is
liable?
1. Simple Facts of the Case
 A government jeep driven by a state employee hit the plaintiff’s
husband.
 The accident was caused by rash and negligent driving.
 The jeep was being taken to the Collector’s office from a workshop.
2. Version of the First Part (Plaintiff’s Claim)
 The government is responsible for its employee’s actions while
performing official duties.
3. Version of the Second Part (Defendant’s Argument)
 The state may argue sovereign immunity, meaning it is not liable for
official actions.
4. Evidence
 Eyewitness statements confirming negligent driving.
 Police report documenting the accident.
5. Connected Law

10
 State Liability Doctrine: Governments can be held liable for non-
sovereign functions.
 Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. (1965) granted sovereign immunity, but
later cases like Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) allowed claims
for government negligence.
6. Judgment
 The state is liable, as driving a jeep for administrative purposes is not a
sovereign function.
7. Reason for Decision
 The accident resulted from a government employee’s negligence during
official duty.
8. Conclusion
 The state must compensate the plaintiff for wrongful death.
9. Citation
 Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. (1965)
 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)

18. 'A' told 'B' as a practical joke that her husband had died in an
accident. 'B' suffered nervous shock and died. 'B's husband sued 'A'.
Decide the liability of A.
1. Simple Facts of the Case
 ‘A’ jokingly told ‘B’ that her husband had died in an accident.
 ‘B’ suffered nervous shock and died.
 ‘B’s husband sued ‘A’.
2. Version of the First Part (Plaintiff’s Claim)
 ‘A’s action caused severe emotional distress, leading to death.
3. Version of the Second Part (Defendant’s Argument)
 ‘A’ may argue it was a harmless joke with no intent to cause harm.
4. Evidence
 Medical report confirming shock as cause of death.
11
  Witnesses proving ‘A’ made the statement.
5. Connected Law
 Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) applies.
 Wilkinson v. Downton (1897) ruled that deliberate mental harm is
actionable.
6. Judgment
 ‘A’ is liable for wrongful death caused by reckless emotional distress.
7. Reason for Decision
 Even though there was no physical act, the joke had foreseeable
harmful consequences.
8. Conclusion
 ‘A’ must pay compensation for mental distress and death.
9. Citation
 Wilkinson v. Downton (1897)

PAPER-III TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

March-2017
PART A – (6 × 2 = 12 Marks)
(Answer any SIX of the following questions.)
1. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1987 S.C.
This case arose from the Oleum Gas Leak from Shri Ram Food and
Fertilizer Industries in Delhi. The Supreme Court held that industries dealing
with hazardous substances owe an absolute liability to compensate victims,
even if there was no negligence. This judgment expanded the strict liability
rule into absolute liability, ensuring industries take complete responsibility for
damages caused by their operations.

2. Fraud of Servant
Fraud of a servant refers to a situation where an employee (servant) commits
fraud while performing their duties. Under vicarious liability, an employer

12
may be held liable if the fraud was committed within the course of
employment. However, if the employee acted for personal gain, the employer
might not be responsible.

3. Consequent Damage
Consequent damage refers to indirect losses suffered due to a wrongful act. It
arises when an initial tortious act causes a chain of further damages. For
example, in a defamation case, loss of reputation may lead to loss of
employment. Such damages must be reasonably foreseeable for compensation.

4. Motive
Motive is the reason or intention behind committing an act. In tort law,
motive is generally irrelevant in determining liability. For example, in
trespass, even if the act was done with good intention, liability still exists.
However, in cases like malicious prosecution, motive is crucial in proving
wrongful intent.

5. Res Ipsa Loquitur

This Latin phrase means “the thing speaks for itself.” It applies when the
nature of an accident itself suggests negligence, without needing direct proof.
For example, if a brick falls from a building and injures a passerby, the
owner is presumed negligent unless proven otherwise. This doctrine shifts the
burden of proof to the defendant.

6. Temporary and Perpetual Injunction

An injunction is a court order preventing a party from doing a certain act.
 Temporary Injunction: Granted for a limited period to prevent
immediate harm until the final judgment.
 Perpetual Injunction: A permanent order issued after the case is
decided, restraining a party indefinitely.

13
7. Battery
Battery is an intentional and direct application of force on another person
without lawful justification. It includes hitting, slapping, or pushing
someone. Physical contact must be harmful or offensive, but actual injury is
not necessary. Battery is both a civil and criminal offense.

8. Injuria Sine Damnum

This Latin phrase means “injury without damage.” It applies when a person’s
legal rights are violated, even if there is no actual loss or damage. In Ashby
v. White, the plaintiff was denied the right to vote, even though the election
result remained unchanged. The court ruled that the mere violation of rights is
actionable.

9. Act of God
An Act of God refers to a natural event that is unforeseeable and unavoidable,
such as earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes. In tort law, it is a defense that
exempts a person from liability if the damage was caused solely by natural
forces. The event must be beyond human control.

10. Infants
In tort law, infants (minors under 18) are generally not held liable for torts
unless they act with full understanding of their actions. However, they can be
sued for negligence if they act in a way that a reasonable child of similar age
would not. Parents are not automatically liable, unless they failed to supervise
their child.

PART B – (2 × 14 = 28 Marks)
(Answer any TWO of the following questions.)
11. There is a Definite Number of Torts Outside Which Liability in Tort
Does Not Exist. Explain.
1. Introduction

14
Tort law is based on civil wrongs, where one party suffers harm due to another’s
wrongful act or omission. However, tort law does not recognize an exhaustive
list of wrongs; rather, it evolves through precedents and case laws.
2. No Fixed List of Torts
Unlike contract law, where liability is fixed by agreement, tort law is not
codified and remains flexible. Courts recognize new torts based on evolving
social, economic, and technological factors.
3. Types of Recognized Torts
 Intentional Torts – Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Defamation
 Negligence – Breach of duty causing foreseeable harm (e.g., Donoghue v.
Stevenson)
 Strict & Absolute Liability – Liability without proof of fault (e.g., M.C.
Mehta case)
 Vicarious Liability – Employers' liability for employees' wrongs
 Nuisance – Unlawful interference with a person's enjoyment of property
4. Judicial Expansions of Torts
 Courts have introduced new torts like privacy infringement, harassment,
and medical negligence.
 Rylands v. Fletcher created the rule of strict liability, which evolved into
absolute liability in India.
5. Conclusion
Tort law remains dynamic and expands with judicial interpretation. While there
are recognized torts, courts can develop new principles based on justice and
fairness.

12. Critically Analyze the Rule Established in Donoghue Vs. Stevenson.

1. Introduction
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) established the modern law of negligence. It laid
down the duty of care principle, holding that manufacturers owe a duty to
consumers.
2. Facts of the Case

15
  Mrs. Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer purchased by her friend.
 The bottle contained a decomposed snail, causing her illness.
 She sued the manufacturer for negligence, as there was no direct contract
between them.
3. Court's Decision
 Lord Atkin introduced the "neighbor principle", stating that a person
should take reasonable care to avoid acts likely to injure their
"neighbors".
 Manufacturers were held liable for ensuring their products were safe.
4. Importance of the Case
 Expanded liability beyond contract law – consumers could now sue
manufacturers directly.
 Established duty of care in negligence cases.
 Led to the development of consumer protection laws worldwide.
5. Critical Analysis
 Strengths: Ensured justice for consumers, provided a clear negligence
framework, and expanded legal accountability.
 Weaknesses: The judgment did not define the extent of duty of care
clearly, leading to future judicial interpretations.
6. Conclusion
Donoghue v. Stevenson remains a cornerstone of negligence law, influencing
global legal systems and shaping modern consumer rights protections.

13. Discuss How Far the Government of India Is Liable for the Torts
Committed by Its Servants.
1. Introduction
The liability of the Government for the torts of its servants is derived from the
principle of vicarious liability. However, state immunity can limit such liability.
2. Legal Provisions in India
 Article 300 of the Indian Constitution: The Government can be sued in
contract and tort as if it were a private individual.
16
  Sovereign vs. Non-Sovereign Functions:
o Sovereign Functions: The state is not liable (e.g., military, police
actions).
o Non-Sovereign Functions: The state is liable (e.g., transport
services, hospitals).
3. Key Case Laws
 State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) – Government was liable when a
state employee negligently killed a pedestrian.
 Kasturilal v. State of U.P. (1965) – Government was not liable when a
police officer misappropriated gold, as policing was a sovereign function.
 Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P. (1994) – The Court held that the distinction
between sovereign and non-sovereign functions was outdated.
4. Recent Developments
 Courts now adopt a more liberal approach, holding the state liable in
cases where public authorities cause harm due to negligence.
 The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) led to absolute liability for hazardous
industries.
5. Conclusion
The Government of India is liable for torts committed by its servants, except in
cases of sovereign functions. However, courts are gradually expanding state
liability to ensure justice.

14. Discuss the Constitution, Composition, and Jurisdiction of the District

Consumer Forum.
1. Introduction
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) is a quasi-
judicial body under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It deals with consumer
disputes at the district level.
2. Constitution of the District Forum
The District Forum is established by the State Government in every district.
3. Composition

17
  President – A retired or serving District Judge.
 Two Members – One of them must be a woman.
 Members should have knowledge and experience in fields like law,
commerce, or consumer affairs.
4. Jurisdiction
 Territorial Jurisdiction: Complaints can be filed in the district where the
opposite party resides or conducts business.
 Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
o The District Forum handles cases where the claim is up to ₹50
lakh.
 Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
o The forum hears cases related to defective goods, deficiency in
services, unfair trade practices, and medical negligence.
5. Procedure for Filing a Complaint
1. The consumer files a complaint in the prescribed format.
2. The opposite party is notified and given time to respond.
3. The case is heard, and evidence is examined.
4. A final judgment is delivered, directing compensation or corrective
action.
6. Powers of the District Forum
 Summon witnesses and documents
 Order product replacements or refunds
 Award compensation for losses
 Impose penalties on erring businesses
7. Appeal Process
 Appeals against District Forum decisions can be made to the State
Commission within 30 days.
8. Conclusion

18
The District Consumer Forum plays a crucial role in protecting consumer rights
and ensuring fair trade practices. It provides an accessible legal remedy for
aggrieved consumers.

PART C – (2 × 15 = 30 Marks)
(Answer any TWO of the following questions.)
15. ‘X’ told ‘Y’ as a practical joke that her husband died in an accident. ‘Y’
suffered nervous shock and died. ‘Y’s husband sued ‘X’. Decide the
liability of ‘X’.
1. Simple Facts of the Case
 ‘X’ falsely told ‘Y’ that her husband had died in an accident as a
practical joke.
 ‘Y’ suffered nervous shock and died.
 ‘Y’s husband sued ‘X’ for causing his wife’s death.
2. Version of the First Part
 ‘X’ claims that he did not intend to harm ‘Y’ and that it was just a prank.
 No physical contact was made, so he argues that he should not be held
liable.
3. Version of the Second Part
 ‘Y’s husband argues that ‘X’s false statement led to severe emotional
distress, which resulted in her death.
 He claims that ‘X’ is liable for wrongful death.
4. Evidence
 Testimonies confirming ‘X’ made the false statement.
 Medical reports proving that ‘Y’ died due to nervous shock.
5. Connected Law
 Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) – A person
is liable if they cause severe emotional distress, leading to harm.
 Wilkinson v. Downton (1897) – A person who causes mental harm
through deliberate false statements can be held liable.

19
6. Judgment
 ‘X’ is liable for causing mental trauma leading to death.
 The court may order monetary compensation to ‘Y’s husband.
7. Reason for Decision
 ‘X’s statement was false and reckless, directly causing foreseeable
harm.
 Even though there was no physical contact, the impact on ‘Y’ was real
and severe.
8. Conclusion
 ‘X’ cannot defend his actions as a “joke” since the harm was reasonably
foreseeable.
 He is liable for wrongful death under tort law.
9. Citations
 Wilkinson v. Downton (1897)
 Dulieu v. White & Sons (1901)

16. Ram, the driver of a Collector’s car, while taking the Collector to the
camp office, caused an accident to Rajesh, a pedestrian, due to negligence.
Rajesh sued the Government. Is the Government liable?
1. Simple Facts of the Case
 Ram, the driver of a government vehicle, negligently hit Rajesh, a
pedestrian.
 Rajesh sued the Government, claiming it is vicariously liable.
2. Version of the First Part
 The Government argues that it is not responsible since the driver was
personally negligent.
 It may also argue that the accident happened during official duty (a
sovereign function).
3. Version of the Second Part

20
  Rajesh argues that Ram was acting within the scope of his employment,
making the Government vicariously liable.
4. Evidence
 Eyewitness accounts of Ram’s negligence.
 Police and medical reports on Rajesh’s injuries.
5. Connected Law
 Vicarious Liability – Employers are responsible for their employees'
negligence during official duty.
 State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) – Government was held liable
for negligence by a driver.
 Kasturilal v. State of U.P. (1965) – Government was not liable for
sovereign functions.
6. Judgment
 If Ram was driving for official duty, the Government is liable.
 If the court considers it a sovereign function, the Government is not
liable.
7. Reason for Decision
 The Collector’s travel is a non-sovereign function.
 State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati sets a precedent for Government
liability in such cases.
8. Conclusion
 Government is liable for Rajesh’s injuries and must pay compensation.
9. Citations
 State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)
 Kasturilal v. State of U.P. (1965)

17. ‘A’ gave some money as a loan to ‘B’. When ‘B’ did not repay the loan
in time, ‘A’ threatened ‘C’, the wife of ‘B’, that he would remove her ear
studs. When ‘A’ moved threateningly toward ‘C’, a neighbor intervened
and offered money to repay the loan. Thereafter, ‘A’ did nothing and left.
‘C’ sued ‘A’ for battery. Decide.
21
1. Simple Facts of the Case
 ‘A’ loaned money to ‘B’.
 When ‘B’ failed to repay, ‘A’ threatened B’s wife ‘C’.
 ‘A’ moved toward ‘C’ in a threatening manner, but a neighbor
intervened.
 ‘C’ sued ‘A’ for battery.
2. Version of the First Part
 ‘A’ argues that no physical contact happened, so he is not liable for
battery.
3. Version of the Second Part
 ‘C’ argues that ‘A’s threatening act put her in reasonable fear of harm,
constituting assault.
4. Evidence
 Witness testimony confirming ‘A’ moved threateningly.
 No actual physical contact occurred.
5. Connected Law
 Battery requires physical contact.
 Assault is an act causing reasonable fear of harm.
 R v. Ireland (1997) – Verbal threats causing immediate fear can amount
to assault.
6. Judgment
 ‘A’ is not liable for battery but liable for assault.
7. Reason for Decision
 No physical contact means it is not battery.
 ‘A’s threatening movement caused reasonable fear, making it assault.
8. Conclusion
 ‘C’ can claim damages for assault, but not for battery.
9. Citations
 R v. Ireland (1997)
22
  Read v. Coker (1853)

18. In a Public Meeting, ‘X’, a Member of Lok Sabha, Made a Defamatory

Statement About ‘Y’, Who Is Also a Member of Lok Sabha. Can ‘Y’ Sue
‘X’?
1. Simple Facts of the Case
 ‘X’, a Lok Sabha member, made a defamatory statement about ‘Y’.
 The statement was made in a public meeting.
 ‘Y’ wants to sue for defamation.
2. Version of the First Part
 ‘X’ argues that as a Lok Sabha member, he has parliamentary
privilege.
3. Version of the Second Part
 ‘Y’ argues that the statement was made outside Parliament, so no
privilege applies.
4. Evidence
 Public recordings of ‘X’s speech.
 Witness statements confirming defamatory words.
5. Connected Law
 Article 105 of the Constitution grants parliamentary privilege only for
statements made inside Parliament.
 Defamation under IPC (Sections 499-500) – Public defamatory
statements are punishable.
6. Judgment
 ‘X’ can be sued, as the statement was outside Parliament.
7. Reason for Decision
 Parliamentary privilege does not extend to public speeches.
8. Conclusion
 ‘X’ is liable for defamation, and ‘Y’ can sue him for damages.

23
9. Citations
 Article 105, Indian Constitution
 Defamation under IPC (Sections 499-500)

PAPER-III TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

March-2018
PART A (6 × 2 = 12 Marks)
Answer any SIX of the following questions:
1. Damnum Sine Injuria
Damnum Sine Injuria refers to a situation where a person suffers loss or
damage (damnum) but has no legal claim because the loss is not
accompanied by a violation of a legal right (injuria). In other words, no legal
remedy is available if there is no injury to a right, even though there may be
financial or personal harm.
Example: If a factory emits smoke causing discomfort to neighbors but does
not cause any actionable injury, no claim for damages may be filed.
2. Act of God
An Act of God refers to a natural event that is unforeseeable and
unavoidable, such as earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes. In tort law, it is a
defense that exempts a person from liability if the damage was caused solely by
natural forces. The event must be beyond human control.
Example: A flood caused by a sudden and unprecedented storm that destroys
crops can be considered an Act of God.
3. Slander
Slander is a form of defamation that involves making false and damaging
statements about a person’s reputation, but in a temporary form such as
spoken words or gestures, as opposed to written or published material.
Example: If someone falsely claims that another person committed a crime,
causing harm to their reputation, it could constitute slander.

24
4. Product Liability
Product Liability refers to the legal responsibility of a manufacturer or seller
for harm caused by defective products. It ensures consumers can seek
compensation for injuries or damages resulting from faulty products,
whether the defect was caused by design, manufacturing, or labeling errors.
Example: A consumer suing a toy company because the toy caused injury
due to a defective design is an example of product liability.
5. Joint Tortfeasors
Joint Tortfeasors are two or more persons who together commit a tort and are
jointly and severally liable for the damage caused. Each defendant is liable
for the entire damage, and the plaintiff can sue any or all of them for full
compensation.
Example: If two people act together to damage someone’s property, both are
equally liable for the full amount of the damage.
6. Innuendo
Innuendo is a statement that, although seemingly innocuous, can have a
hidden meaning or implication that harms a person’s reputation. It usually
involves indirect or subtle defamation, often requiring the plaintiff to prove
the meaning behind the words.
Example: If someone says, "I wonder how ‘X’ always manages to win those
awards," it could imply cheating or dishonesty, which could be considered
defamatory.
7. Passing Off
Passing Off is a form of unfair competition where one person misrepresents
their goods or services as those of another, often to deceive consumers. This
usually involves imitating a trademark or brand, leading to confusion.
Example: A company selling imitation handbags with a logo that closely
resembles a well-known luxury brand may be accused of passing off.
8. Malicious Prosecution
Malicious Prosecution occurs when someone initiates a criminal or civil case
without reasonable grounds and with the intent to harm the other party. The
person filing the case is liable for the damages caused by the wrongful
lawsuit.
Example: If someone files a false theft case against another person with the
intent to harm their reputation, it could amount to malicious prosecution.

25
 9. Nominal Damages
Nominal Damages are a small amount of money awarded by the court to a
plaintiff who has proven that a legal right was violated, but there was no
substantial harm or financial loss. These damages recognize the infringement
of rights without compensating for actual damage.
Example: A person may receive nominal damages if their right to privacy
was violated, but no significant harm resulted from the violation.
10. Scienter Rule
The Scienter Rule refers to the legal principle that a defendant can be held
liable if they are found to have had knowledge of the harm or defect they
caused. It is often applied in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or strict
liability.
Example: If a manufacturer knows a product is defective but still sells it,
they can be held liable under the Scienter Rule.
PART B (2 × 14 = 28 Marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions:
11. Define tort, critically examining the definitions given by Salmond
and Winfield.
Definition of Tort:
A tort is defined as a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another
individual, for which a legal remedy can be sought, typically in the form of
damages. Torts are distinct from criminal wrongs and breach of contract, as
they do not necessarily involve intentional wrongdoing or contractual
obligations.
Salmond's Definition:
Salmond defines a tort as “an act or the commission of a wrongful act
leading to legal harm, done without lawful justification, for which a civil
remedy is provided by law.” According to Salmond, the focus is on harm
done to another, with the essential elements being wrongful act and harm.
Winfield’s Definition:
Winfield defines a tort as “a civil wrong for which the court will provide a
remedy, typically in the form of damages.” Winfield's approach is broader,
emphasizing that torts involve violations of rights which result in harm,
regardless of intent.
Critical Examination:

26
 Salmond's Definition is narrower because it focuses on the wrongful act
and harm caused. However, it lacks clarity on situations where the
wrongful act might not be accompanied by harm, such as in nominal
damages.
 Winfield's Definition is more comprehensive, recognizing that tort law
aims to protect various kinds of legal rights. Winfield’s definition
includes cases where harm is done, but it does not focus heavily on the
mental or emotional impact of the wrongdoing.
Conclusion: Both definitions offer valuable insights into tort law, with
Salmond emphasizing the wrongful act and Winfield focusing on the concept
of civil remedies for harm. However, both definitions could be expanded to
include non-physical damages and intentional torts more clearly.

12. Explain the liability of the state for the torts committed by its
employees.
Liability of the State:
The state can be held liable for torts committed by its employees under the
doctrine of vicarious liability, where an employer is held responsible for the
actions of its employees performed in the course of employment. This also
applies to government employees.
Key Points:
1. Vicarious Liability: The state, as an employer, can be held vicariously
liable for torts committed by government employees in the course of their
duties. For example, if a police officer negligently causes harm while
performing official duties, the state may be liable for the damage caused.
2. Sovereign Immunity: Historically, the state had sovereign immunity,
meaning it could not be sued for torts committed by its officials.
However, this immunity is gradually eroded, and many legal systems now
allow lawsuits against the state under certain conditions, especially where
the state has waived this immunity.
3. Public Duty: Torts committed while discharging a public duty (e.g.,
police duties, firefighting, etc.) may lead to liability if the employee’s
negligence causes harm to citizens. For instance, a negligent act by a
government employee, like an accident caused by a government vehicle,
may lead to state liability.

27
4. Exceptions: The state may not be liable for torts committed by
employees acting beyond the scope of their employment or for acts of
discretion (e.g., policy decisions), such as decisions made in the exercise
of sovereign functions.
Case Law:
 Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh: In this case, the
Supreme Court held that the state could be held liable for torts committed
by its employees under vicarious liability, provided the tort is committed
during the discharge of public duties.
Conclusion: The state's liability is limited to actions done within the scope
of official duties. While sovereign immunity provides some protection, the
principle of vicarious liability ensures that victims of government employees'
wrongful acts can claim compensation.

13. Examine the doctrine of remoteness of damages in tort with

reference to leading cases.
Doctrine of Remoteness of Damages:
The doctrine of remoteness of damages restricts the extent to which a
defendant can be held liable for the consequences of their wrongful act. The
damages must not be too remote or disconnected from the act to be
compensable. The core idea is to prevent the defendant from being held
liable for unforeseeable consequences of their actions.
Leading Cases:
1. The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961]:
In this case, the Privy Council held that a defendant is not liable for
damage that is too remote. The defendant spilled oil into a harbor, and the
oil caused a fire when it ignited. The Court ruled that the defendant could
not be liable for the fire because it was not a foreseeable consequence of
the oil spill.
Key Point: The Court applied the "foreseeability" test to determine the
remoteness of damages.
2. Hadley v. Baxendale (1854):
In this case, the English Court of Exchequer set the foundation for
determining remoteness of damages by stating that damages should be
limited to what was foreseeable at the time the contract was made. The
Court ruled that the defendant was not liable for the loss of profits as it
28
 was not a foreseeable consequence of the delay in delivering the broken
crankshaft.
3. Barker v. Corus [2006]:
This case concerned a claim for lung cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos. The House of Lords ruled that the defendant should be liable for
damages proportionate to their responsibility in causing the harm, even if
other factors contributed to the injury.
Conclusion: The doctrine of remoteness ensures that defendants are only
liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable, and this limits excessive
claims. However, the principle continues to evolve, and the law adapts to
different factual circumstances.

14. Examine the salient features of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) was enacted to protect the
interests of consumers in India, providing a framework for seeking redress
against deficiencies and defects in goods and services.
Salient Features:
1. Definition of Consumer:
The Act defines a consumer as a person who buys goods or services for
personal use, and not for resale. The Act also covers those who use goods
or services with the approval of the purchaser.
2. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums:
The CPA established a three-tier dispute redressal mechanism:
o District Forum: Deals with complaints up to Rs. 20 lakhs.
o State Commission: Deals with complaints exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs
but less than Rs. 1 crore.
o National Commission: Deals with complaints exceeding Rs. 1
crore.
3. Rights of Consumers:
o Right to be informed about the quality, quantity, and price of goods
and services.
o Right to choose from a variety of goods and services.
o Right to be heard and seek redress for complaints.

29
 o Right to seek compensation for unfair trade practices and defects.
4. Defects and Deficiencies:
The Act provides for remedies against defects in goods or deficiencies in
services. A defect refers to any imperfection in the product that affects its
normal functioning, while a deficiency is a shortcoming in the service
provided.
5. Unfair Trade Practices:
The Act protects consumers from misleading advertisements, false
claims, and other forms of unfair trade practices.
Example: Misleading advertising of a product’s benefits.
6. Consumer Forums' Powers:
Consumer forums can issue orders for compensation, removal of defects,
replacement of goods, or refund of money.
7. Product Liability:
The Act provides a legal remedy to consumers harmed by defective goods
or deficient services, holding manufacturers and service providers
accountable for their products or services.
8. Recent Amendments:
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 introduced significant changes,
including:
o The creation of Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).
o E-commerce consumer protection.
o Provisions for the online filing of complaints.
Conclusion: The Consumer Protection Act provides a robust mechanism for
consumers to seek redressal against exploitation. The Act empowers
consumers by guaranteeing the right to be informed, choose, and protected
from unfair practices. The 2019 amendments further strengthen the Act's
scope to address modern-day challenges, such as e-commerce.

PART C (2 × 15 = 30 Marks)
Answer any TWO of the following case-based questions:
15. ‘A’ is a spectator at a car race. During the race, there was a collision
between two cars, and one of the cars was thrown into the crowd,

30
injuring ‘A’. ‘A’ filed a suit claiming damages against ‘B’, the racing
club owner. ‘B’ pleads the defense of Volenti Non Fit Injuria. Decide.
1. Simple facts of the Case (or) Simple-facts of the given Problem:
A spectator, ‘A’, was injured during a car race when one of the cars
collided and was thrown into the crowd. ‘A’ claims damages against ‘B’,
the racing club owner. ‘B’ pleads the defense of Volenti Non Fit Injuria,
meaning that ‘A’ consented to the risk of injury by attending the race.
2. Version of the First Part:
The collision occurred during the car race, and ‘A’ was injured as a result
of a car being thrown into the crowd. ‘A’ asserts that the injury was due
to the negligence of the organizers, specifically ‘B’, the racing club
owner.
3. Version of the Second Part:
‘B’ argues that ‘A’ voluntarily accepted the risks inherent in watching a
car race and thus cannot claim damages under the defense of Volenti Non
Fit Injuria (no injury is done to one who consents).
4. Evidence:
o Evidence would include the nature of the car race, including
whether safety measures were taken for spectators.
o Testimonies regarding the terms and conditions of attending the
race and whether risks were properly communicated to the
audience.
o Records of safety standards at the event (e.g., barriers, warnings).
5. Connected Law:
o The Volenti Non Fit Injuria defense: This principle holds that if a
person voluntarily accepts the risk of injury, they cannot later claim
damages.
o Tort Law: Negligence may apply if it can be proven that the
defendant failed to take reasonable care to avoid injury to
spectators.
6. Judgment (or) Decision (or) Verdict:
The court would likely uphold the Volenti Non Fit Injuria defense if it
can be shown that ‘A’ voluntarily accepted the inherent risks of attending
the race. However, if the race was negligently organized or lacked

31
 adequate safety measures, the court might rule in favor of ‘A’, as consent
does not extend to risks beyond what is reasonable.
7. Reason for the above Decision:
The defense of Volenti Non Fit Injuria operates where a person
knowingly and voluntarily exposes themselves to risks. However, if the
defendant’s actions were grossly negligent or the risks were not
communicated adequately, the defense may fail.
8. Conclusion:
The outcome depends on whether the risks inherent in the race were
sufficiently communicated and if the race organizers took adequate steps
to mitigate the risks to spectators.
9. Citations:
o Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (1933) – Applied the
Volenti Non Fit Injuria principle.

16. ‘M’ suffered nervous shock when her friend ‘N’ told her, as a joke,
that her child met with an accident. Is ‘N’ liable? If so, on what
principle? Explain.
1. Simple facts of the Case (or) Simple-facts of the given Problem:
‘M’ suffered nervous shock after ‘N’ falsely told her, as a joke, that her
child had met with an accident. ‘M’ was distressed by the news, and the
shock caused harm. The question is whether ‘N’ is liable for causing
nervous shock.
2. Version of the First Part:
‘N’ made a false statement to ‘M’ about her child’s accident, which
caused emotional distress. It was done in a joking manner, but the distress
led to a real psychological impact on ‘M’.
3. Version of the Second Part:
‘M’ claims compensation for nervous shock due to ‘N’s joke, alleging
that the distress caused harm. ‘N’ may argue that no liability arises from a
harmless joke.
4. Evidence:
o Medical evidence showing that ‘M’ suffered from nervous shock
due to the false statement.

32
 o Testimony from ‘N’ about the intention behind the statement and
whether it was truly intended as a joke.
o Witnesses who may confirm the distress caused to ‘M’ after
hearing the news.
5. Connected Law:
o Nervous Shock: Courts recognize claims for nervous shock in
cases where emotional distress causes physical harm, even without
physical injury.
o Tort of Negligence: In this case, ‘N’s actions may be considered
negligent, as even if it was a joke, it could foreseeably cause harm.
6. Judgment (or) Decision (or) Verdict:
The court is likely to hold ‘N’ liable for nervous shock as it was a
foreseeable result of telling someone such distressing news, even in jest.
This case would fall under negligence rather than intentional tort, as the
harm was caused by the negligent act of making an outrageous false
claim.
7. Reason for the above Decision:
It is foreseeable that telling someone a distressing falsehood about a
loved one could cause emotional harm. Therefore, ‘N’ should have taken
reasonable care not to cause such distress.
8. Conclusion:
Liability may arise for causing nervous shock under the negligence
principle, as the risk of emotional harm from such a statement is
foreseeable.
9. Citations:
o Chester v. Waverley Borough Council (1995) – Liability for
nervous shock.
o Tame v. New South Wales (2002) – Recognition of nervous shock
claims in certain circumstances.

17. The police authorities recovered some stolen property from a suspect
and deposited it in the police Malkhana. The property was later stolen
again from the Malkhana. Discuss the liability of the Government in a
suit filed by the owner of the property.

33
1. Simple facts of the Case (or) Simple-facts of the given Problem:
The police recovered stolen property and stored it in the police
Malkhana (storage room). The property was later stolen again. The
owner of the property is suing the government for its failure to safeguard
the property.
2. Version of the First Part:
The police were responsible for securing the stolen property but failed to
do so. The property was stolen while in their care, leading to a suit filed
by the original owner.
3. Version of the Second Part:
The government, through the police, may argue that it did not have
control over the theft or that they cannot be held liable for every loss in
their custody.
4. Evidence:
o Documentation of the police’s responsibility for safeguarding the
recovered property.
o Evidence of how the property was handled and stored.
o Testimonies about the security measures in place and whether they
were adequate.
5. Connected Law:
o Vicarious Liability: The government may be liable for the
negligent actions of its employees in the police department.
o Bailment: The government was a bailee of the stolen property and
had a duty to take reasonable care of it.
6. Judgment (or) Decision (or) Verdict:
The government may be held liable for the theft of the property from the
Malkhana as the police were entrusted with its care and failed in their
duty to protect it. This may be considered negligence.
7. Reason for the above Decision:
The government has an obligation to ensure the safety and security of
property in its custody. Failure to do so would lead to liability for
negligence.
8. Conclusion:
The government can be held liable for the loss of property due to

34
 negligence in safeguarding it, under principles of vicarious liability and
bailment.
9. Citations:
o Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh – State
liability for loss of property in custody.
o State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati – Government liability for
negligent acts of employees.

18. ‘A’, a newspaper editor, published a news item that ‘B’, a leading
lawyer, married ‘C’, a famous doctor, in the city. The news also included
photographs. However, ‘B’ and ‘C’ were already married to different
people. Both sued ‘A’ for defamation. Decide whether ‘A’ can succeed in
their defense.
1. Simple facts of the Case (or) Simple-facts of the given Problem:
‘A’ published a false news report stating that ‘B’ and ‘C’ married each
other, which was untrue. ‘B’ and ‘C’ were already married to different
people. Both sued ‘A’ for defamation.
2. Version of the First Part:
The news was published without verifying the facts, and it damaged the
reputation of ‘B’ and ‘C’ by making false claims about their personal
lives.
3. Version of the Second Part:
‘A’ may argue that the statement was not defamatory or that it was
published in good faith. ‘A’ may also claim that it was a mistake or that
the publication was of public interest.
4. Evidence:
o The newspaper’s records showing the publication of the article
with photographs.
o Testimonies from ‘B’ and ‘C’ about the damage to their reputations.
o Evidence of whether the story was fact-checked and whether there
was any public interest in the publication.
5. Connected Law:

35
 o Defamation Law: Defamation involves the publication of false
statements that harm a person’s reputation.
o Public Interest and Privilege: ‘A’ may argue that the publication
was in the public interest or was privileged, but this defense is
likely to fail if the publication was based on a false statement.
6. Judgment (or) Decision (or) Verdict:
The court would likely rule that ‘A’ is liable for defamation because the
statements made were false and caused harm to the reputations of ‘B’ and
‘C’. A successful defense would require evidence of truth or privilege,
which is unlikely in this case.
7. Reason for the above Decision:
False statements that damage a person's reputation, especially when made
recklessly, lead to liability for defamation. There is no defense of truth or
privilege here as the statement was unverified and false.
8. Conclusion:
‘A’ is likely to be held liable for defamation due to the false and
damaging nature of the publication.
9. Citations:
o Dunlop v. United Kingdom – Defamation and the need for truth
or privilege for defense.
o Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) –
Discusses defamation and freedom of the press.

PAPER-III TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

March-2019
PART A (6 × 2 = 12 marks)
Answer any SIX of the following questions:
1. Fatal Accidents Act
The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, allows the family members of a deceased
person to file a suit for damages when the death is caused by the wrongful
act or negligence of another party. It aims to provide compensation for the
financial loss suffered by the dependents of the deceased. The Act allows a
claim for loss of support, companionship, and funeral expenses.

36
2. Last Opportunity Rule
The Last Opportunity Rule applies in cases where a plaintiff has an
opportunity to avoid the injury or damage caused by the defendant's act. If
the plaintiff fails to take that opportunity, the defendant may not be held
liable. This rule is mainly used in torts of negligence and helps in
determining the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
3. Nominal Damages
Nominal damages are awarded in cases where a legal wrong has occurred,
but no actual damage or loss has been suffered by the plaintiff. It is a small
sum of money, typically awarded to establish that a legal right has been
infringed, even though no real harm was done. It is often used to maintain
legal rights or set a legal precedent.
4. Standard of Care
Standard of care refers to the level of caution and attention a reasonable
person would exercise in a given situation. It is a key element in negligence
claims, where the defendant's conduct is compared to that of a reasonable
person. The standard varies depending on the circumstances and can be
higher for professionals (e.g., doctors or engineers) who owe a higher duty
of care.
5. Malicious Prosecution
Malicious prosecution occurs when a person is wrongfully subjected to a
criminal or civil case without probable cause, and the proceedings are
initiated with malice. The plaintiff can sue for damages if it is proved that the
prosecution was initiated without reasonable grounds, and the case was
dismissed in the plaintiff's favor.
6. Slander
Slander refers to defamation through spoken words or gestures. It occurs
when false statements are made about someone, damaging their reputation.
Unlike libel (written defamation), slander typically causes temporary harm
and is usually actionable only when special damages (such as financial loss)
are proven unless the statements fall into specific categories (e.g., allegations
of a crime).
7. Innuendo
Innuendo in defamation refers to an indirect or implied meaning in a
statement that harms the reputation of a person. Even if a statement does not
37
 appear defamatory on the surface, if it has an underlying meaning that can
damage the reputation of an individual, it can be considered defamatory
under the law.
8. Nervous Shock
Nervous shock refers to a psychiatric injury caused by witnessing a
traumatic event or being exposed to distressing circumstances. A person may
claim compensation for nervous shock if they can prove that the shock
resulted from the defendant's negligence and that it caused a recognizable
psychiatric injury.
9. Res Ipsa Loquitur
Res Ipsa Loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine in tort
law where the facts of the case are so evident that negligence can be inferred.
It applies when the injury is of a kind that would not normally occur without
someone's negligence, and the defendant is in control of the situation or
instrumentality causing the injury.
10. Battery
Battery is the intentional and unlawful application of force to another person
without their consent. It involves physical contact that causes harm or
offense to the victim. In tort law, battery is a civil wrong, and the injured
party may seek damages for the harm caused by the unwanted touching or
force.

PART B (2 × 14 = 28 marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions:
11. General Defences Applicable to All Torts, with Special Reference to 'Act
of God' and Necessity
In tort law, the following general defences can be invoked to avoid
liability:
1. Consent: If the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to the defendant's conduct, it
is considered a defence. For example, in battery cases, if a person
consents to physical contact, there is no tort.
2. Self-defence: A defendant can argue that they used reasonable force to
protect themselves from harm. This defence is applicable in cases of
assault or battery.

38
 3. Defence of Property: This defence applies when the defendant uses force
to protect their property from an imminent threat.
4. Necessity: This defence allows a defendant to justify their otherwise
unlawful act if it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. For example,
breaking into a house to save someone from a fire can be justified under
the defence of necessity. However, the harm caused must not exceed the
harm avoided.
5. Act of God: An Act of God refers to natural events or forces beyond
human control, such as floods, earthquakes, or lightning. If the
defendant’s actions were caused by such an uncontrollable event, they
may not be liable for the resulting damage. For example, a flood might
wash away property that was otherwise properly maintained, and the
owner would not be liable due to the unforeseeable nature of the event.
6. Illegality: If the plaintiff's own illegal action contributed to their harm,
they may be barred from claiming damages. This is known as the defence
of illegality.
7. Statutory Authority: If an action was carried out under the authority of a
statute, the defendant might be protected from liability, even if the action
would have otherwise constituted a tort.

12. Ingredients of the Tort of 'Negligence' Under the Law of Tort with
Leading Cases
Negligence is a tort where a person fails to take reasonable care, resulting
in harm to another. The key ingredients of negligence are:
1. Duty of Care: The defendant must owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The
landmark case, Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), established the "neighbour
principle," holding that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions that can foreseeably harm others who are closely and directly
affected by the defendant's actions.
2. Breach of Duty: The defendant must have breached their duty of care. In
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), the court defined negligence
as failing to do something that a reasonable person would have done or
doing something that a reasonable person would not have done.
3. Causation: The breach of duty must have caused the harm or injury to
the plaintiff. This includes both factual causation (the 'but for' test) and

39
 legal causation (proximate cause). In Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington
Hospital (1969), the court applied the 'but for' test to determine that the
defendant's actions did not directly cause the plaintiff's injury.
4. Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered actual damage as a result of
the defendant’s negligence. The damage could be physical injury,
financial loss, or emotional harm.
The courts in negligence cases rely on these principles to determine
liability.

13. Doctrine of Remoteness of Damages in Tort with Reference to Leading

Cases
The doctrine of remoteness of damages refers to the principle that a
defendant is only liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable as a
consequence of their actions. The key elements of this doctrine include:
1. Foreseeability: A defendant is liable only for the type of damage that a
reasonable person could foresee as a likely result of their conduct. The
landmark case The Wagon Mound (No. 1) (1961) established this
principle. In this case, the defendants spilled oil into a harbor, which
resulted in a fire. The court held that the fire damage was not foreseeable,
and thus the defendant was not liable for it.
2. Direct Causation: The damage must be directly caused by the
defendant’s actions. In Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963), the court held
that the injury to the plaintiff, who fell into an open manhole, was
sufficiently proximate to the defendant’s actions, even though the exact
manner in which the injury occurred was not foreseeable.
3. Test for Remoteness: The key question is whether the injury is too
remote from the defendant's negligence. The Polemis (1921) case initially
established the "direct consequences" test, where a defendant could be
held liable for any direct consequence, no matter how unforeseen.
However, the more modern approach, as seen in The Wagon Mound,
focuses on whether the type of damage was foreseeable.

14. Composition, Jurisdiction, and Power of Various Authorities

Established Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (2006)

40
 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides a framework for the
protection of consumer rights and includes provisions for the
establishment of various authorities to resolve consumer disputes. The
authorities under the Act include:
1. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum:
o Composition: A District Forum consists of a president and two
members, one of whom is a woman.
o Jurisdiction: It has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the
value of goods and services does not exceed ₹20 lakh.
o Powers: The Forum can award compensation, remove defects,
replace goods, and issue orders to the opposite party.
2. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
o Composition: A State Commission consists of a president and two
members, one of whom is a woman.
o Jurisdiction: It deals with complaints where the value of goods or
services exceeds ₹20 lakh but is less than ₹1 crore.
o Powers: It has powers to handle appeals from the District Forums
and resolve consumer disputes within its jurisdiction.
3. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):
o Composition: The NCDRC has a president and four other
members.
o Jurisdiction: The NCDRC hears cases where the value of goods or
services exceeds ₹1 crore.
o Powers: It can entertain appeals from State Commissions, hear
original complaints, and issue directions for compensation.
4. Powers and Functions of Authorities:
o The authorities have the power to issue directions for the removal
of defects in products, payment of compensation to consumers, and
discontinuation of unfair trade practices.
o They can also issue orders to prevent the manufacture or sale of
defective goods or services.

41
 o The Act also provides for the establishment of a Central Consumer
Protection Authority (CCPA), which is empowered to investigate
unfair trade practices and take actions against such practices.
5. Consumer Protection Councils:
o The Central and State Governments can establish Consumer
Protection Councils to promote and protect consumer rights.

PART C (2 × 15 = 30 marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions:
15. A, an Ayurvedic Doctor Prescribed Allopathic Medicines Which
Caused the Death of a Patient. Decide the Liability of the Ayurvedic
Doctor Under the Consumer Protection Act.
1. Simple Facts of the Case: A, an Ayurvedic doctor, prescribed allopathic
medicines to a patient. The patient died due to an adverse reaction to
these medicines.
2. Version of the First Part: The Ayurvedic doctor, in this case, provided
treatment outside his area of expertise (allopathic medicine) without the
required care and expertise, leading to the patient's death.
3. Version of the Second Part: The patient's family sued the Ayurvedic
doctor under the Consumer Protection Act, claiming the doctor provided
defective treatment, resulting in the patient's death.
4. Evidence:
o Medical records showing that the Ayurvedic doctor prescribed
allopathic medicines.
o Post-mortem report indicating the cause of death as due to the
medicines prescribed.
o Expert medical testimony regarding the doctor's lack of
qualification to prescribe allopathic medicines.
5. Connected Law: Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Section
2(1)(o)), a professional, like a doctor, is considered to provide services to
the public. If those services are defective or cause harm, the consumer has
the right to claim compensation.

42
6. Judgement (or) Decision (or) Verdict: The Ayurvedic doctor may be
held liable under the Consumer Protection Act for providing services
beyond his scope, which caused harm to the patient. The court could
decide that the doctor was negligent in prescribing medicines outside his
professional competence.
7. Reason for the Decision: The doctor failed to provide the standard of
care expected for the services he provided. Prescribing allopathic
medicines without proper expertise constitutes negligence under the Act.
8. Conclusion: The Ayurvedic doctor is liable for the patient’s death under
the Consumer Protection Act, as the treatment provided was defective
and harmful.
9. Citations:
o Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta (1995) – the Supreme
Court held that medical negligence could fall under the purview of
the Consumer Protection Act.

16. The Defendant's Servant Sold Gasoline to Two Boys Aged Seven and
Nine Years, Who Misused It and One Was Burned. Is the Defendant
Liable?
1. Simple Facts of the Case: The defendant's servant sold gasoline to two
boys who lied about needing it for their mother's car. They used it for
play, which resulted in one of the boys being badly burnt.
2. Version of the First Part: The defendant’s servant sold gasoline to
minors who did not disclose the true purpose for using the highly
inflammable liquid.
3. Version of the Second Part: One of the boys got severely burned while
playing with the gasoline. The parents of the injured child sued the
defendant, alleging negligence in selling the gasoline.
4. Evidence:
o Testimony that the boys misrepresented their intentions for using
the gasoline.
o Expert testimony regarding the inherent dangers of gasoline and
the responsibility of the seller in ensuring it is sold for proper use.

43
 o Statements confirming the boys’ age and their inability to safely
handle the gasoline.
5. Connected Law: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 holds that a seller
must provide goods that are reasonably safe for use. Selling hazardous
substances to children constitutes a breach of duty.
6. Judgement (or) Decision (or) Verdict: The defendant may be held liable
under the Consumer Protection Act for selling a dangerous product to
minors. The defendant had a duty to ensure the safety of the product’s
use, especially when selling highly inflammable substances to children.
7. Reason for the Decision: The defendant failed to assess the buyer’s
actual need for gasoline and allowed the sale to minors, which was
reckless and negligent.
8. Conclusion: The defendant is liable for the injury caused to the child due
to their negligent sale of gasoline under the Consumer Protection Act.
9. Citations:
o Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar (2009) – the Supreme
Court held that companies could be liable for unsafe products
leading to injury, even in cases of negligence.

17. A, a Newspaper Editor, Publishes False News About B and C. Can A

Be Held Liable for Defamation?
1. Simple Facts of the Case: A, a newspaper editor, published an article
stating that B, a leading lawyer, married C, a famous doctor. B and C
sued A for defamation, claiming that they were already married to other
people.
2. Version of the First Part: A, as the editor, published incorrect
information about the marriage of B and C without verifying the facts.
3. Version of the Second Part: B and C sued for defamation, arguing that
the false news tarnished their reputation in the public eye.
4. Evidence:
o Copies of the published article and photographs.
o Proof of B and C’s existing marriages to other individuals.

44
 o Testimony from B and C regarding the harm caused to their
reputations.
5. Connected Law: Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code
(defamation), a false statement made with the intention to harm
someone's reputation is punishable. Under the Consumer Protection
Act, a false advertisement can also be considered a form of unfair trade
practice.
6. Judgement (or) Decision (or) Verdict: A may be held liable for
defamation as the published news was false and caused reputational harm
to B and C.
7. Reason for the Decision: A failed to verify the facts before publishing,
resulting in defamation. The editor’s publication was deemed as a
reckless disregard for truth.
8. Conclusion: A is liable for defamation due to the false and damaging
information published without proper verification.
9. Citations:
o Chakrabarty v. The State (2004) – the court held that defamation
could occur through the publication of false statements that harm
someone's reputation.

18. Ms. Sarala Prasad Purchased a TV That Stopped Functioning

Within One Month. What Remedy is Available to Her Under the
Consumer Protection Act?
1. Simple Facts of the Case: Ms. Sarala Prasad purchased a color TV from
a retail shop, but the TV stopped working within one month of purchase.
2. Version of the First Part: Ms. Sarala Prasad approached the retailer and
complained about the defective TV, but the issue was not resolved.
3. Version of the Second Part: Ms. Sarala Prasad filed a complaint under
the Consumer Protection Act, seeking compensation or a replacement
for the defective TV.
4. Evidence:
o Proof of purchase (receipt or bill).
o Testimony from the repair technician confirming the defect.

45
 o Evidence of failed attempts to resolve the issue with the retailer.
5. Connected Law: Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a
consumer has the right to seek a remedy for defective goods, including
repair, replacement, or refund.
6. Judgement (or) Decision (or) Verdict: Ms. Sarala Prasad may be
entitled to a replacement or refund under the Consumer Protection Act.
If the retailer or manufacturer fails to address the defect, the case can be
taken to the Consumer Forum.
7. Reason for the Decision: The TV is considered defective, and the retailer
is obligated to replace or refund the purchase under the Act. The defect
within a short period qualifies as a fault under the law.
8. Conclusion: Ms. Sarala Prasad is entitled to a remedy, including a
replacement or refund, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act.
9. Citations:
o Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) – the
Supreme Court held that the defective goods should be replaced
under consumer rights laws.

3 YEAR LL.B. DEGREE EXAMINATION, MARCH 2020

Paper III - TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
PART A (6×2=12 marks)
Answer any SIX of the following questions:
1. Definition of Tort
A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, that causes harm or loss
to another person and for which the law provides a remedy. It is a wrongful act
or an infringement of a right (other than under a contract) leading to legal
liability.

2. Damnum Sine Injuria

46
"Damnum sine injuria" means "damage without legal injury." It refers to
situations where a person suffers harm or loss, but no legal right is violated. In
such cases, there is no tortious liability because no legal injury has occurred,
even though damage has been caused.

3. Liability Without Fault

Liability without fault refers to situations where a person or entity is held liable
for harm or damage even if they were not negligent or did not intend to cause
harm. This principle is applicable in cases like strict liability and absolute
liability, where the defendant is responsible regardless of fault or intent.

4. Extra-Judicial Remedies
Extra-judicial remedies are remedies provided outside the court system. These
remedies are usually informal and are pursued by individuals or parties without
going through formal legal proceedings. Examples include self-defense, re-entry
to property, or set-off claims, and sometimes arbitration or mediation can be
seen as extra-judicial remedies.

5. Right of Consumer
The right of a consumer refers to the entitlement of individuals or groups to
access goods or services that are safe, reliable, and available at fair prices. This
includes the right to be informed, the right to choose, the right to safety, and the
right to seek redressal in case of harm or unfair practices, as provided under
consumer protection laws.

6. Malicious Prosecution
Malicious prosecution refers to a tort where one person initiates a legal action
against another with improper motives, without reasonable grounds, and for the
purpose of causing harm. To succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution, the
claimant must prove that the prosecution was initiated without probable cause,
with malice, and resulted in damage to the claimant.

7. Nervous Shock

47
Nervous shock refers to a mental injury caused by an event that causes
emotional distress or trauma. In tort law, nervous shock is a form of emotional
harm caused by witnessing an event or by someone else’s negligence. It can
lead to a claim for damages if the shock results in a recognized psychiatric
condition.

8. Occupational Hazards
Occupational hazards are dangers or risks associated with the work environment
or occupation. These can include physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic, or
psychological risks. Employers are usually required to take measures to
minimize these hazards to ensure the safety and health of their employees, and
failure to do so may result in liability.

9. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence

The doctrine of contributory negligence holds that if a plaintiff is found to have
contributed to their own injury through their own negligence, they may be
barred from recovering any damages from the defendant. In some jurisdictions,
this doctrine has been replaced or modified by comparative negligence, where
the plaintiff’s damages are reduced in proportion to their contribution to the
injury.

10. Detinue
Detinue is a tort where a person wrongfully retains possession of goods or
property that belong to another. It occurs when the defendant refuses to return
goods that were either unlawfully or wrongfully taken or simply when the goods
are wrongfully withheld after being requested to be returned.

PART B (2×14=28 marks)

Answer any TWO of the following questions:
11. Explain the maxim ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ and its application with the help
of decided cases.

48
Res Ipsa Loquitur, which means "the thing speaks for itself," is a legal
doctrine used in tort law. It applies when an accident occurs in a way that
suggests negligence, but the exact cause of the harm is unknown or difficult to
prove. In such cases, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that they were
not negligent.
Application and Case Law:
 In the case of Byrne v. Boadle (1863), a barrel of flour fell from a
window of the defendant's shop and injured the plaintiff. The court
applied Res Ipsa Loquitur, stating that the occurrence of the event itself
(a barrel falling from a shop window) was sufficient to presume
negligence.
 In Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries Ltd. (1939), the court elaborated that
Res Ipsa Loquitur applies in cases where the defendant has exclusive
control over the instrumentality of harm and the event would not have
happened without negligence.
The maxim does not automatically establish negligence but raises an inference
of negligence, shifting the burden to the defendant to rebut the presumption.

12. Explain the general defences applicable to all torts, with special
reference to ‘Act of God’ and ‘Necessity’.
General Defenses in Torts include:
 Consent: If the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to the defendant's actions, they
cannot claim a tort has occurred.
 Self-defense: A person can use reasonable force to defend themselves
against an imminent attack.
 Mistake: A tort may not apply if the defendant acted in a reasonable
mistake of fact.
 Act of God: This defense applies when an event occurs that is outside
human control, such as natural disasters. The defendant will not be liable
for damages caused by such unforeseeable events. For example, in
Nichols v. Marsland (1876), the defendant was not liable for the
flooding caused by an extraordinary rainstorm, as it was an act of God.
 Necessity: This defense is used when a person commits a tort to avoid
greater harm or injury. It allows for actions that would otherwise be

49
 tortious if done out of necessity to prevent a more severe consequence. In
Cooper v. Willson (1902), necessity was applied as a defense where a
person broke into a house to put out a fire and prevent more damage.

13. What is the rule of ‘Strict Liability’? What are the exceptions to this
rule?
Strict Liability is a rule in tort law where a defendant is held liable for harm
caused by their actions, regardless of fault or negligence. The key principle is
that the defendant is responsible for the damage caused by certain activities,
even if they took reasonable precautions to avoid the harm. The classic
formulation of this rule comes from Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), where the
defendant was held strictly liable for the damage caused by water escaping from
his reservoir, even though he was not negligent.
Exceptions to Strict Liability:
1. Consent of the plaintiff: If the plaintiff agrees to the activity or risk, the
defendant is not strictly liable.
2. Act of God: If the harm is caused by an unforeseeable natural event (like
a storm), the defendant will not be held liable.
3. Plaintiff's own fault: If the plaintiff's own actions or negligence
contribute to the damage, strict liability may not apply.
4. Lawful authority: If the defendant is acting under a legal mandate or
statutory authority, they may be exempt from strict liability.

14. What are the aims and objects of the Motor Vehicle Act?
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was enacted to regulate all aspects of motor
vehicle use in India, ensuring safety, protection, and accountability. Its aims and
objectives are:
1. Regulation of Traffic: The Act provides for the control and regulation of
traffic, ensuring smooth and safe movement of vehicles on roads.
2. Road Safety: It aims to minimize accidents and fatalities on the road by
establishing rules for the safe operation of vehicles, including seat belt
use, helmet regulations, speed limits, etc.

50
 3. Vehicle Licensing and Registration: It provides the framework for the
registration of motor vehicles and the issuance of driving licenses to
ensure that only qualified individuals operate vehicles.
4. Insurance and Compensation: The Act ensures that vehicle owners
have insurance to cover damages caused in case of accidents. It also
provides compensation for victims of road accidents, especially through
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
5. Environmental Protection: The Act includes provisions related to
pollution control, such as limiting emissions from vehicles to safeguard
public health and the environment.
6. Public Transport Regulation: The Act regulates commercial vehicles,
including buses, taxis, and auto-rickshaws, to ensure passenger safety and
rights.
Key Sections: The Act covers various aspects, such as rules related to
registration of vehicles (Section 39), driving licenses (Section 4), and penalties
for violations (Section 177), among others.

PART C (2×15=30 marks)

Answer any TWO of the following questions:
15. ‘D’, an Ayurvedic doctor prescribed the medicines of allopathy,
which caused the death of a patient. Decide the liability of the Ayurvedic
doctor under the Consumer Protection Act.
1. Simple Facts of the Case:
o D, an Ayurvedic doctor, prescribed allopathic medicines to a
patient.
o The allopathic medicines caused the death of the patient.
o The patient’s family filed a complaint under the Consumer
Protection Act against D for medical negligence.
2. Version of the First Part:
o D, being an Ayurvedic doctor, is not trained to prescribe allopathic
medicines, which is the practice of modern medicine. This led to
the patient’s death, suggesting a breach of professional duty and a
lack of care.

51
3. Version of the Second Part:
o The death of the patient was a direct consequence of the prescribed
medicines. D failed to follow the standard care required, as an
Ayurvedic doctor is not qualified to prescribe allopathic treatments.
4. Evidence:
o Medical records, prescription details, and post-mortem report
indicating that the death was caused by the prescribed medicines.
o Testimonies from medical professionals regarding the standard
practices for Ayurvedic treatment and the unqualified prescription
of allopathic medicines.
5. Connected Law:
o Under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a
doctor providing medical services is considered a service provider,
and failure to provide proper services or negligence can lead to
compensation under the Act.
o Section 2(1)(o) defines a defective service, and prescribing
medicines outside one’s expertise could be classified under this.
6. Judgement (or) Decision:
o The Ayurvedic doctor (D) is liable for medical negligence under
the Consumer Protection Act, as the act of prescribing allopathic
medicines by an unqualified professional caused the death of the
patient.
7. Reason for the Above Said Decision:
o D’s failure to adhere to the standard of care and his unqualified
prescription of allopathic medicines led directly to the patient’s
death.
o The court is likely to rule in favor of the complainants, as D’s
actions were a clear deviation from medical norms.
8. Conclusion:
o D is liable for the death of the patient under the Consumer
Protection Act. Compensation is likely to be awarded to the family
of the deceased for the loss caused by medical negligence.
9. Citations:

52
 o Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) – The
Supreme Court held that medical professionals are liable under the
Consumer Protection Act if their service is found to be deficient.

16. ‘X’ wrote a letter to his wife in which he criticized ‘Y’, the father of
his wife, as a person who acquired property only because of corruption.
Y, who read the letter, sued ‘X’ for damages. Explain.
1. Simple Facts of the Case:
o X wrote a letter to his wife criticizing Y (his father-in-law) as a
corrupt person.
o Y read the letter and sued X for defamation.
2. Version of the First Part:
o X wrote a private letter to his wife expressing his opinion about Y,
criticizing him for corruption.
o Y, being the subject of the criticism, read the letter and felt
defamed by the allegations.
3. Version of the Second Part:
o Y files a defamation suit against X for publishing false and
defamatory statements about him, despite the fact that the letter
was intended as a private communication.
4. Evidence:
o The letter written by X, containing the defamatory statement.
o Testimony of Y asserting that the contents of the letter were false
and defamatory.
o Potential witnesses or evidence supporting that the statement
harmed Y’s reputation.
5. Connected Law:
o Defamation is defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), which involves making false statements that damage
the reputation of an individual.
o Section 500 of IPC provides for the punishment of defamation.

53
 o Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (if the
defamation occurred through digital communication) may also be
applicable.
6. Judgement (or) Decision:
o The court would likely rule that Y’s claim for defamation holds
weight. Even though the letter was private, the content of the letter
has caused harm to Y’s reputation, and therefore X may be held
liable.
7. Reason for the Above Said Decision:
o Defamation is not limited to public statements; private
communications can also be defamatory if they harm the reputation
of an individual. The critical part is whether the defamatory
statement was false and damaging.
8. Conclusion:
o X is likely liable for defamation, and Y may be entitled to
compensation for the harm caused to his reputation.
9. Citations:
o Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) – The Supreme
Court ruled that defamation, even in private communications,
could lead to liability if the statement is defamatory and false.

17. A disturbed his neighbour ‘B’ throughout the night by playing a

music system. Is it actionable tort? Discuss.
1. Simple Facts of the Case:
o A played loud music all night, disturbing his neighbor B.
o B complains that the noise caused inconvenience and distress.
2. Version of the First Part:
o A’s actions caused physical discomfort and emotional distress to B,
disturbing B’s sleep and peace.
o A’s conduct was reckless and disregarded the comfort and well-
being of B.
3. Version of the Second Part:

54
 o B may file a suit claiming that A’s actions constitute a nuisance,
causing him harm and annoyance.
o The issue revolves around whether A’s actions are considered
unreasonable and whether they interfere with B’s right to enjoy his
property peacefully.
4. Evidence:
o Testimonies from B about the disturbance caused by the music.
o Possible witness statements from neighbors who can confirm the
loudness of the music.
o Evidence that B attempted to resolve the issue peacefully before
taking legal action.
5. Connected Law:
o Private nuisance is a tort under which a person may seek redress
for unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of their
property (as per Rogers v. Elliott, 1995).
o The Indian Penal Code (IPC) also recognizes offenses related to
causing public nuisance under Section 268.
6. Judgement (or) Decision:
o A’s action could be considered an actionable tort under private
nuisance, and B may seek compensation or injunctive relief to stop
A from continuing the disturbance.
7. Reason for the Above Said Decision:
o The music being played through the night was unreasonable and
disrupted B’s peaceful enjoyment of his property, which is a clear
violation of B’s rights.
8. Conclusion:
o B’s claim is likely to be successful, and A may be required to cease
the disturbance and compensate B for the harm caused.
9. Citations:
o Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Shankar Bhardwaj (2007) – This
case reinforced the idea that noise pollution can constitute private
nuisance and be actionable in court.

55
18. Defendants were the proprietors of a stagecoach in which the plaintiff
and his wife were traveling. The coach was upset by the negligence of the
defendants. The plaintiff himself was much bruised, and his wife was
severely hurt and died about a month later in a hospital. Can he claim
compensation? Discuss.
1. Simple Facts of the Case:
o The plaintiff and his wife were traveling in a stagecoach owned by
the defendants.
o The stagecoach upset due to the defendants’ negligence, resulting
in the plaintiff being injured and his wife suffering severe injuries,
which led to her death a month later.
2. Version of the First Part:
o The plaintiff sustained physical injuries, and his wife sustained
fatal injuries due to the negligence of the defendants in maintaining
the stagecoach or driving it recklessly.
3. Version of the Second Part:
o The plaintiff claims compensation for the injuries he suffered, as
well as the loss of his wife due to the negligence of the defendants.
4. Evidence:
o Medical reports confirming the injuries to both the plaintiff and his
wife.
o Accident report indicating negligence on the part of the stagecoach
operators.
o Testimonies from witnesses regarding the incident.
5. Connected Law:
o Negligence is the key element here, and the defendants may be
held liable for not exercising reasonable care in operating the
stagecoach, leading to the accident.
o The Motor Vehicles Act, Indian Contract Act, and Consumer
Protection Act may be relevant in terms of ensuring safe transport
services.
6. Judgement (or) Decision:

56
 o The plaintiff is likely to be awarded compensation for both the
physical injury suffered by him and the death of his wife due to the
negligence of the stagecoach operators.
7. Reason for the Above Said Decision:
o The defendants were negligent, and the harm caused to both the
plaintiff and his wife was directly related to their actions. Under
negligence law, they are liable for the damages.
8. Conclusion:
o The plaintiff will likely succeed in his claim for compensation for
both personal injury and wrongful death caused by the negligence
of the defendants.
9. Citations:
o Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) – This case established the
principles of negligence and duty of care that

LL.B. DEGREE EXAMINATION, AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2021

First Semester
Paper III: TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
(Regular & Supplementary)
PART A (6 × 2 = 12 Marks)
Answer any SIX of the following questions:
1.Define Tort:
A tort is a civil wrong or injury, other than a breach of contract,
that causes harm or loss to another individual, for which the injured
party may seek legal remedy through compensation. Torts can be
intentional or result from negligence.
2.Explain Consumer Protection:
Consumer protection refers to laws and regulations designed to safeguard the
interests of consumers by ensuring their rights to receive safe, quality goods and

57
services. It aims to prevent exploitation, fraud, and unsafe products in the
marketplace.
3.What is Contributory Negligence?
Contributory negligence occurs when a person contributes to their own injury or
loss through their own negligence or failure to exercise reasonable care,
potentially reducing or eliminating the other party's liability for damages.
4. What constitutes False Imprisonment?
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint or confinement of a person without
consent or legal authority, restricting their freedom of movement. It includes
physical detention, the threat of force, or the use of barriers to restrict
movement.
5.Discuss the maxim "Res Ipsa Loquitur":
"Res Ipsa Loquitur" means "the thing speaks for itself." It is a legal doctrine
used in negligence cases when the defendant's actions are so evidently negligent
that the court can infer liability without direct evidence. It shifts the burden of
proof to the defendant.
6.Define the "Act of God":
An "Act of God" refers to natural events or occurrences, such as earthquakes,
floods, or storms, that are beyond human control and are typically not
foreseeable. It can serve as a defense in tort cases where harm is caused by such
an event.
7.What are Exemplary Damages?
Exemplary damages, also known as punitive damages, are awarded to punish a
defendant for particularly egregious or malicious behavior and to deter similar
conduct in the future. These are granted in addition to compensatory damages.
8.What is Trespass?
Trespass refers to the unlawful interference with a person’s property or land
without consent. It can involve direct physical entry onto land, damage to
property, or causing an obstruction on the property.
9.Who are Tortfeasors?
Tortfeasors are individuals or entities who commit a tort, meaning they are
responsible for causing harm or injury to another person or their property
through intentional or negligent actions.

58
10.Discuss the relevance of motive in torts: In tort law, the motive behind an
act is generally not relevant to determining liability. What matters is the
defendant's actions and whether they caused harm. However, in cases of
intentional torts, motive may be considered to determine the degree of malice or
negligence.
PART B (2 × 14 = 28 Marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions:
11. Discuss Volenti Non Fit Injuria as a General Defense in an Action for
Tortious Liability
Definition and Meaning: "Volenti non fit injuria" is a Latin maxim that
translates to "to a willing person, no injury is done." In tort law, this defense
applies when a person voluntarily accepts the risk of harm or injury that
arises from a particular activity or situation. The defense is based on the
notion that if an individual willingly consents to a risk or danger, they cannot
later claim damages for injuries suffered due to that risk.
Application and Examples:
 Sports: In activities like sports or adventure activities, participants
knowingly accept the inherent risks. For example, a football player who
is injured during a match cannot claim compensation on the basis of
negligence because the risk is inherent in the game.
 Voluntary Risks: If someone voluntarily participates in an activity like
riding a motorcycle without a helmet, they cannot sue for injuries caused
by an accident as they willingly accepted the risk.
 Exclusions: The defense of "Volenti" does not apply if the harm caused
was outside the scope of the voluntary risk. For instance, if a participant
in a football game is injured by reckless or intentional actions not related
to the game, the defense will not apply.
Case Law:
 Smith v. Baker (1891): The plaintiff was injured by a crane when stones
fell from it. He had accepted the risk of working beneath the crane. The
court ruled that the defense of volenti could apply, as the plaintiff was
aware of the risk.
 Haynes v. Harwood (1935): The plaintiff was injured when a horse
bolted due to the defendant's negligent act. The court held that the

59
 plaintiff had not voluntarily accepted the risk, as he was not engaged in
any dangerous activity.

12. Examine the Liability of the State for the Torts Committed by its
Servants
The liability of the state for torts committed by its servants or employees is a
complex area of law, involving the principle of "vicarious liability," which
holds an employer liable for the actions of its employees conducted within
the scope of employment. When the state or government servants commit a
tort during their employment, the state can be held liable.
Principles of Liability:
 Vicarious Liability: The state is vicariously liable for torts committed by
its employees in the course of their duty. This includes police officers,
teachers, and government officials who, while performing official duties,
cause harm to individuals.
 Sovereign Immunity: In some jurisdictions, the state has immunity from
being sued for certain acts. However, sovereign immunity has been
waived in many cases, and legal remedies are available.
Case Law:
 K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): The court held that the state is
vicariously liable for the actions of its servants under the law of tort.
 R. v. Governor of St. Thomas's Hospital (1958): This case affirmed the
liability of the state for acts committed by its servants, with certain limits.
Exclusions:
 The state is not liable for actions taken in the exercise of sovereign
functions (e.g., national defense, law-making). However, if a servant’s
actions are outside their scope of employment or are unlawful, the state
can be held liable.

13. Discuss the Rule of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability with
Relevant Case Laws

60
Strict Liability: Strict liability is a principle in tort law where a defendant is
held liable for harm caused by their actions regardless of fault or intention.
Under strict liability, a person is responsible for damages even if they were
not negligent or at fault.
Case Law:
 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): This is the landmark case that established the
rule of strict liability. The defendant constructed a reservoir, and when it
broke, water flooded the plaintiff’s mines. The court held that the
defendant was strictly liable for the damage caused, as the escape of
water was unnatural and dangerous.
Exceptions to Strict Liability:
 The defendant has no liability if the damage was caused by the plaintiff’s
fault or an Act of God (e.g., a natural disaster).
 If the defendant’s actions were authorized by law or were the result of
third-party actions (not under the defendant’s control), liability does not
arise.
Absolute Liability: Absolute liability is a more stringent form of liability,
introduced to eliminate the exceptions available in strict liability. It holds
defendants liable for damages caused by dangerous activities without
exceptions for the acts of God or third-party intervention. The defense of
"act of God" is not allowed in absolute liability cases.
Case Law:
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): The Supreme Court of India
applied the principle of absolute liability to the hazardous industries
involved in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The court ruled that the principle of
absolute liability applies in cases of hazardous industries and activities
that pose a risk to public safety.

14. Explain Various Judicial and Extra-Judicial Remedies Available for

an Action in Tort
Judicial Remedies:
1. Damages: This is the most common remedy in tort law, where the
plaintiff is compensated for the loss or injury suffered. Types of damages
include:

61
 o Compensatory Damages: To compensate for actual losses.
o Punitive (Exemplary) Damages: To punish the defendant for
egregious behavior and deter others.
o Nominal Damages: Awarded when a legal wrong has occurred,
but no actual loss is proven.
o Aggravated Damages: Awarded for emotional distress caused by
the defendant's actions.
2. Injunctions: An injunction is an order by the court that prevents or
compels a party to do something. It can be permanent or temporary,
depending on the circumstances.
3. Specific Performance: In certain cases where a contract is involved,
specific performance can be ordered as a remedy to enforce the terms of
the contract.
4. Rescission: This remedy involves the cancellation of a contract that was
entered into as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.
Extra-Judicial Remedies:
1. Settlement: Parties can reach a settlement through negotiation, without
involving courts. This is often seen in tort cases where parties agree to
compensation without a trial.
2. Mediation and Arbitration: In cases where parties agree to resolve their
dispute outside of court, mediation or arbitration can be employed. These
methods involve third-party neutrals who help in resolving the dispute.
3. Apology or Acknowledgment: In certain cases, an apology or formal
acknowledgment of wrongdoing may serve as a form of remedy or
settlement for the injured party.
Conclusion: Both judicial and extra-judicial remedies serve important roles
in the resolution of tortious disputes. Judicial remedies are usually more
formal and involve the legal process, while extra-judicial remedies focus on
negotiation and settlement outside the court.

PART C (2 × 15 = 30 Marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions:

62
15. A received treatment at a company Eye Hospital. Due to the
negligence of the hospital doctor, A suffered a complete loss of eyesight.
What remedies are available to A?
1. Simple facts of the case: A was treated at a company Eye Hospital. Due
to the negligence of the hospital doctor, A suffered complete loss of
eyesight.
2. Version of the first part: A went to the company Eye Hospital for
treatment. The doctor, due to negligence, made a mistake during the
treatment procedure, leading to A's complete loss of eyesight.
3. Version of the second part: A, now blind, realizes that the hospital's
negligence led to the irreversible damage to his eyesight, and he seeks
legal remedies for the harm caused.
4. Evidence:
o Medical reports confirming negligence during treatment.
o Testimony from an independent medical expert.
o Evidence of the doctor's previous records of professional conduct.
5. Connected law: The law related to negligence in torts, specifically the
duty of care owed by medical professionals and institutions to their
patients. Under the Consumer Protection Act, A may be considered a
consumer who has been provided defective medical services, and thus, he
can claim compensation.
6. Judgment (or) Decision: A can file a complaint under the Consumer
Protection Act, seeking compensation for the harm caused by the
doctor's negligence. A court may order a medical compensation suit under
Negligence, and the doctor or hospital may be liable for damages.
7. Reason for the decision: The doctor and hospital owe a duty of care to
their patients. When this duty is breached due to negligence leading to
harm, the injured party (A) is entitled to compensation.
8. Conclusion: A is entitled to claim compensation for medical negligence,
which resulted in the permanent loss of eyesight.
9. Citations:
o Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta (1995) – It established
that medical negligence falls under the purview of the Consumer
Protection Act.

63
 o Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) –
Established the standard of care expected from medical
professionals.

16. A state government has purchased 10 cars from an automobile dealer

for the purpose of its executives. There was a manufacturing defect in
one of the cars purchased. The government wants to approach the
consumer forum. Advise.
1. Simple facts of the case: The state government purchased 10 cars from
an automobile dealer for the use of its executives. One of the cars
developed a manufacturing defect.
2. Version of the first part: The state government bought the cars for
official use. After receiving the vehicles, one of them was found to have a
manufacturing defect that caused inconvenience and damage.
3. Version of the second part: The government intends to approach the
consumer forum for redressal regarding the defect in the vehicle.
4. Evidence:
o The purchase agreement and invoices of the vehicles.
o A report from an automobile expert confirming the manufacturing
defect.
o Correspondence with the automobile dealer about the defect.
5. Connected law: Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the
government as a purchaser (consumer) can approach the consumer forum
for defective goods. This includes goods purchased for commercial
purposes, as long as it involves the use of goods for the benefit of the
government.
6. Judgment (or) Decision: The government can file a complaint under the
Consumer Protection Act in the consumer forum. The forum may direct
the automobile dealer to either repair the defect, replace the vehicle, or
pay compensation for the damage caused by the defective vehicle.
7. Reason for the decision: The Consumer Protection Act provides
remedies for defective goods, irrespective of whether the buyer is an
individual or a government entity.

64
8. Conclusion: The state government can approach the consumer forum for
relief, and they may receive compensation, repair, or replacement of the
defective vehicle.
9. Citations:
o L. P. Ramaswamy v. Subramaniam (2009) – Confirmed the
applicability of the Consumer Protection Act for government
entities purchasing goods.
o United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manubhai D. Shah (1997) –
The court upheld that the government could be considered a
consumer in a commercial transaction.

17. A sent his car driver B to C. In the course of driving the car, B met
with an accident. The accident killed a person and a calf. Who is liable
to claim damages?
1. Simple facts of the case: A sent his driver B to drive the car to C. During
the journey, B met with an accident that caused the death of a person and
a calf.
2. Version of the first part: A hired B to drive the car for a specific
purpose. B was driving when an accident occurred, causing fatalities.
3. Version of the second part: The person who was killed and the calf
owner may seek compensation from either A or B, depending on the
liability involved in the accident.
4. Evidence:
o Police reports and accident investigation findings.
o Statements from witnesses to the accident.
o The condition of the driver, whether negligence was involved.
5. Connected law: Under Vicarious Liability, A may be held liable for the
actions of B if the driver was acting within the scope of his employment.
However, B may also be personally liable if the accident was caused by
his negligence.
6. Judgment (or) Decision: Both A and B may be liable for damages under
Vicarious Liability. A, as the employer, may be held responsible for the
accident, and B, the driver, could also be held liable if found negligent.

65
7. Reason for the decision: A is vicariously liable for the actions of his
employee (B) while B was driving in the course of his duties. B's actions
may also be scrutinized for negligence.
8. Conclusion: The victims' families may claim damages from both A and
B, depending on the findings of negligence or fault in the accident.
9. Citations:
o Shamshuddin v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (1995) –
Confirmed the employer's liability for the acts of employees during
the course of employment.
o Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhuri Devi
(2009) – Vicarious liability of an employer for actions of its
employees.

18. A minor hired a bicycle for his own use from the shopkeeper and
gave it to his friend, who damaged the cycle. Advise the shopkeeper on
how he can claim damages.
1. Simple facts of the case: A minor hired a bicycle from a shopkeeper for
his own use. A gave the bicycle to his friend, who damaged it.
2. Version of the first part: The shopkeeper entered into a contract with the
minor for renting the bicycle. However, the bicycle was later damaged by
A's friend.
3. Version of the second part: The shopkeeper seeks to claim damages for
the damage to the bicycle. Since A is a minor, the contract may be
voidable, and the shopkeeper may want to hold A’s friend liable.
4. Evidence:
o The rental agreement showing that A hired the bicycle.
o Photographs or reports documenting the damage.
o Witness statements or police reports (if any).
5. Connected law: Under Contract Law, minors cannot be held liable for
contracts unless they relate to necessities. However, since A's friend
caused the damage, the shopkeeper may claim damages from the friend
under Tort Law for negligence.

66
 6. Judgment (or) Decision: The shopkeeper can claim damages from A's
friend for the damage caused to the bicycle. The contract with the minor
(A) may not be enforceable, but the friend can be held liable under tort
for the damage.
7. Reason for the decision: A minor cannot be held liable for the contract,
but third parties who cause damage to property can be held liable under
tort.
8. Conclusion: The shopkeeper can claim damages from A’s friend for the
damage to the bicycle.
9. Citations:
o Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) – Minors cannot be
held liable for contracts.
o Sampath Kumar v. A.P. Electricity Board (2003) – Discusses
liability for third-party actions leading to damage.

3 YEAR LL.B. DEGREE EXAMINATION, JUNE 2022

(Regular & Supplementary)
First Semester
Law
Paper III - TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
PART A (6 × 2 = 12 marks)
Answer any SIX questions:
1. Assault
Assault is an intentional act by the defendant that causes the plaintiff to fear an
imminent and unlawful force or harm. It is different from battery as it does not
require physical contact. The threat of harm must be immediate and create
reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff's mind.
2.Doctrine of Common Employment
The doctrine of common employment provides that an employer is not liable for
injuries caused to an employee by the negligence of a fellow employee during
67
the course of employment. This doctrine has been significantly limited by
statutory reforms, especially in cases of personal injury and industrial accidents.
3.Independent Contractor
An independent contractor is a person hired to perform work or provide services
under terms agreed upon by both parties but without direct supervision or
control by the employer. The employer is not generally liable for the torts
committed by an independent contractor, except in cases of vicarious liability
for inherently dangerous work or statutory duties.
4.Intimidation
Intimidation occurs when one person uses threats of harm to force another
person into doing something against their will or to stop them from exercising
their rights. The threat must be unlawful and cause the victim to act or refrain
from acting due to fear of harm.
5.Nicholas vs Marshland
Nicholas v. Marshland (1877) is a landmark case that deals with the liability for
damages caused by the escape of water from a reservoir. The defendant was
held liable for the escape of water, despite no negligence, because the escape
was due to an unnatural state of affairs and violated the duty of care.
6.No Fault Liability
No fault liability refers to situations where a person or entity is held liable for
damages or injury caused, even without proving fault or negligence. It is
typically applied in cases involving strict liability or under certain statutory
provisions like those in product liability or motor vehicle accidents.
7.Tribunal under Motor Vehicle Act
The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 establishes a tribunal for the adjudication of
claims related to road traffic accidents. The tribunal, known as the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), has jurisdiction to award compensation for
injury or death caused by accidents involving motor vehicles.
8.Rescue Cases
Rescue cases involve situations where a person is injured while attempting to
rescue someone from danger. In tort law, a rescuer is generally entitled to
compensation for injuries sustained during a rescue, even if the rescue was not
initially required by law. The "dangerous proximity" test applies here.
9. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
"Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium" is a Latin maxim meaning "where there is a right, there
is a remedy." It reflects the principle that whenever a person has a legal right,

68
there should be a legal remedy to protect that right and provide relief in case of
its violation.
10.Nuisance
Nuisance refers to the interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of their
property. It can be public or private. A public nuisance affects a large number of
people, while a private nuisance affects an individual or specific group.
Nuisance can be caused by noise, pollution, or other disturbances.
PART B (2 × 14 = 28 marks)
Answer any TWO questions:
11. What is a Tort? Discuss the essential elements of tortious liability.
Definition of Tort:
A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to a person, property, or
reputation, for which the court provides a remedy, typically through
compensation (damages). It is distinguished from criminal law, where the focus
is on punishment. Tort law deals with situations where one individual's actions
cause harm to another, whether intentional or through negligence.
Essential Elements of Tortious Liability:
1. Wrongful Act:
A tort occurs when a defendant commits a wrongful act that causes harm
or injury to another person, either intentionally or due to negligence.
2. Damage:
The plaintiff must have suffered harm or damage as a result of the
wrongful act. Without damage, there can be no tortious liability, even if
the wrongful act occurred.
3. Causation:
There must be a direct link between the wrongful act and the damage
suffered by the plaintiff. The harm must have been caused by the
defendant's actions, and it must not be too remote.
4. Fault (Intention or Negligence):
In many cases, the defendant's fault is essential. Fault can be either:
o Intentional: The defendant deliberately commits the wrongful act.
o Negligent: The defendant fails to exercise reasonable care, leading
to harm.

69
 5. Legal Remedy:
The plaintiff must be able to seek legal remedy, typically compensation
(damages), for the harm suffered. The remedy is provided by the courts
through tort law.

12. Discuss the role of foreseeability in the determination of remoteness of

damage with decided cases.
Foreseeability in Tort Law:
Foreseeability refers to whether the harm that occurred could have been
anticipated by a reasonable person. It plays a crucial role in determining the
remoteness of damage, which is a test used to establish whether the defendant is
liable for the damage caused by their actions.
Role in Remoteness of Damage:
 Test of Foreseeability:
In determining remoteness, courts use the test of whether the harm was
foreseeable at the time the defendant committed the act. If the damage
was too remote (i.e., it could not have been reasonably foreseen), the
defendant is not held liable.
 Leading Cases:
1. The Wagon Mound (No. 1) (1961):
In this case, the Privy Council held that a defendant could not be
liable for damage that was too remote, even if their actions were
negligent. The court emphasized the foreseeability of the damage.
The fire caused by oil spilled into the water was not foreseeable, so
the defendant was not liable.
2. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing (1964):
The defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries
when a cover fell into a vat. The court ruled that the type of injury
(a chemical reaction) was not foreseeable, and thus, the defendant
was not liable for the remote consequence.
3. Smith v Leech Brain & Co. (1962):
In this case, the court decided that even though the plaintiff's pre-
existing condition made the harm more severe than it would have
been for an average person, the injury was still a foreseeable
consequence of the defendant's negligence, and the defendant was
held liable.
70
Conclusion on Foreseeability:
Foreseeability is a critical factor in determining the remoteness of damage. The
damage must be of a kind that a reasonable person could have anticipated, but
the defendant is not responsible for unusual or unforeseeable outcomes.

13. What is 'Malicious Prosecution'? Explain with essentials.

Definition of Malicious Prosecution:
Malicious prosecution refers to the wrongful initiation of legal proceedings
against a person without reasonable or probable cause, with malice or improper
motive, and where the proceedings end in favor of the accused. The plaintiff can
claim damages for the harm suffered due to the wrongful prosecution.
Essentials of Malicious Prosecution:
1. Initiation of Legal Proceedings:
The defendant must have initiated or continued a legal action against the
plaintiff. This could include criminal or civil proceedings.
2. Lack of Reasonable or Probable Cause:
The defendant must not have had reasonable grounds to believe that the
plaintiff was guilty or liable. There should be no genuine belief in the
merits of the case.
3. Malice or Improper Motive:
The defendant must have acted with malice or a wrongful motive, such as
attempting to harass or harm the plaintiff, rather than in pursuit of a
legitimate legal action.
4. Favorable Outcome for the Plaintiff:
The legal proceedings must have ended in favor of the plaintiff. If the
plaintiff was convicted or lost in the earlier proceedings, they cannot
claim malicious prosecution.
5. Damage to the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff must have suffered actual damage, such as reputational
harm, distress, or financial loss, as a result of the malicious prosecution.
Case Example:
 Clark v. Molyneux (1827):
The defendant was held liable for malicious prosecution after they falsely
accused the plaintiff of theft, causing the plaintiff to suffer harm when the
case was dismissed.
71
14. Explain composition, appointment, and jurisdiction of the district
forum under the Consumer Protection Act.
Composition of the District Forum:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is a quasi-judicial body
established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to resolve consumer
complaints at the district level. It is composed of the following members:
1. President:
A person who is, or has been, a District Judge.
2. Members:
Two other members who are experts in fields related to consumer welfare
(such as commerce, law, economics, etc.). These members are appointed
based on their experience and knowledge.
Appointment of Members:
The President and members are appointed by the state government, typically
based on their qualifications, experience, and expertise. They hold office for a
specific term and are remunerated for their services.
Jurisdiction of the District Forum:
 Territorial Jurisdiction:
The District Forum has jurisdiction over complaints where the value of
goods or services, along with any compensation claimed, does not exceed
₹1 crore.
 Matters Under Jurisdiction:
It deals with complaints related to unfair trade practices, defective goods,
deficiencies in services, and any other consumer-related grievances. The
forum can:
o Order compensation or refund
o Issue directives to the opposing party
o Award damages for physical injury or harm caused by the goods or
services
 Powers:
The District Forum has the power to summon witnesses, receive
evidence, and pass binding orders. If the defendant fails to comply with
the order, the Forum can take enforcement action.

72
Case Example:
 Surjit Singh v. Vardhman Engineering Industries Ltd. (1994):
The District Forum held that the manufacturer had sold defective
products and directed them to compensate the consumer for the loss.

PART C (2 × 15 = 30 marks)
Answer any TWO questions:
15. A is a barber running a salon. ‘B’ is a wealthy customer of his. A and B
quarrel for some reason. B, with malicious intention to cause loss to A,
employed some barbers and opened a salon just opposite A’s salon and
charged less. Consequently, A lost his customers and suffered heavy loss.
Can A recover damages from B?
1. Simple Facts of the Case:
o A, a barber, runs a salon.
o B is a wealthy customer of A.
o A and B quarrelled.
o B, with malicious intent, opened a salon opposite A’s and charged
less, resulting in A losing customers and suffering financial loss.
2. Version of the First Part:
o A runs a business providing services as a barber.
o B is a regular customer who, after a quarrel with A, decided to
harm A’s business intentionally.
3. Version of the Second Part:
o B opened a competing salon opposite A’s with a lower pricing
strategy, which led to A losing his clients and facing financial
hardship.
4. Evidence:
o Evidence of B’s intent to harm A’s business by opening a
competing salon in close proximity.
o Evidence of financial loss suffered by A due to the loss of
customers.

73
 5. Connected Law:
o Tort of Inducing Economic Loss (Malicious Interference):
B's actions can be considered a tort of interference with trade, done
with malicious intent to harm A’s business. This is actionable in
tort, as A suffered loss due to B’s malicious conduct.
6. Judgement/Decision/Veridict:
o A may be entitled to claim damages from B, as B’s actions were
malicious and intentionally designed to harm A’s business. The
loss suffered by A is a direct consequence of B’s actions.
7. Reason for the Above Decision:
o The law of tort allows for recovery of damages when an
individual’s malicious actions harm another's business or economic
interests, particularly where there is an intention to cause loss. The
presence of malice in B’s actions makes this case actionable.
8. Conclusion:
o A can recover damages from B for malicious interference with his
business, as B’s intent was to cause harm and A’s loss was a
foreseeable consequence of B’s actions.
9. Citations:
o Rookes v. Barnard (1964): Malicious interference with
contractual relations can give rise to an actionable tort.

16. The plaintiffs and the defendant’s dogs were fighting. The defendant
was beating them in order to separate them, and the plaintiff was looking
on. The defendant accidentally hit the plaintiff in the eye, causing him a
severe injury. The plaintiff brings an action against the defendant. Can he
succeed?
1. Simple Facts of the Case:
o The plaintiff was observing a fight between the defendant's dogs.
o The defendant was trying to separate the dogs by beating them.
o The defendant accidentally struck the plaintiff in the eye, causing a
severe injury.

74
 o The plaintiff brings an action against the defendant.
2. Version of the First Part:
o The defendant’s dogs were fighting, and the defendant attempted to
break up the fight.
3. Version of the Second Part:
o In the process, the defendant accidentally injured the plaintiff in the
eye while trying to separate the dogs.
4. Evidence:
o Evidence of the plaintiff’s injury (severe eye injury).
o Testimony regarding the accident (the defendant’s actions were not
intentional).
5. Connected Law:
o Negligence:
The defendant may be liable for negligence if it is shown that he
failed to take reasonable care in handling the situation, leading to
the plaintiff’s injury.
o Accidental Injury:
The defendant did not intend to cause harm to the plaintiff but may
still be liable if it was foreseeable that his actions could result in
injury.
6. Judgement/Decision/Veridict:
o The plaintiff may succeed in his claim for negligence, as the
defendant failed to exercise reasonable care when attempting to
separate the dogs. The injury was a foreseeable consequence of the
defendant’s actions.
7. Reason for the Above Decision:
o The defendant was acting carelessly and did not take adequate
precautions while trying to separate the dogs. The injury to the
plaintiff was a direct result of this carelessness.
8. Conclusion:
o The defendant is likely liable for negligence and the plaintiff can
recover damages for the eye injury.

75
 9. Citations:
o Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): Establishes the principle of
negligence, where one is liable for harm caused by a failure to take
reasonable care.

17. A gave some amount and a cheque to his friend, who was an employee
of the bank, for depositing in A’s account. But the friend, instead of
depositing the amount, misappropriated it. Is the bank liable?
1. Simple Facts of the Case:
o A entrusted his friend, who worked at a bank, with an amount of
money and a cheque to deposit into A’s account.
o The friend, instead of depositing the money, misappropriated it.
2. Version of the First Part:
o A gave his friend, who was employed at the bank, the money and
cheque for deposit.
3. Version of the Second Part:
o The friend misappropriated the funds rather than depositing them
into A’s account, leading to a financial loss for A.
4. Evidence:
o Evidence of the transaction, including the amount of money and
the cheque.
o Proof of misappropriation by the friend (possibly through bank
records or witness statements).
o A’s claim of loss due to the misappropriation.
5. Connected Law:
o Vicarious Liability of the Bank:
The bank may be liable for the actions of its employee if it can be
proven that the employee was acting within the scope of his
employment when he misappropriated the funds.
o Breach of Trust:
The friend committed an act of misappropriation, breaching his
duty to A.

76
 6. Judgement/Decision/Veridict:
o The bank may be held liable for the actions of its employee if it can
be proven that the employee was acting within the scope of his
duties when he misappropriated the money. However, if the bank
was unaware and the employee acted outside the scope of
employment, it might not be liable.
7. Reason for the Above Decision:
o If the friend was acting in his capacity as an employee when
handling the money, the bank could be held vicariously liable for
the misappropriation. If the friend was acting outside his
employment duties, the bank might not be liable.
8. Conclusion:
o The bank may be liable for the loss, depending on whether the
employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he
misappropriated the funds.
9. Citations:
o Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd (1957):
Vicarious liability of the employer for the wrongful actions of an
employee committed during the course of employment.

18. The plaintiff resided in a house next to a Roman Catholic Church, of

which the defendant was the priest. The church bell was being rung at all
hours of the day and night. The plaintiff filed a suit for nuisance. Decide.
1. Simple Facts of the Case:
o The plaintiff lives next to a Roman Catholic Church, where the
defendant is the priest.
o The church bell is rung at all hours of the day and night, disturbing
the plaintiff.
o The plaintiff files a suit for nuisance.
2. Version of the First Part:
o The plaintiff’s property is located next to the church, and the
constant ringing of the church bell is disturbing his peace and
quiet.

77
3. Version of the Second Part:
o The plaintiff claims that the bell’s noise constitutes a nuisance that
interferes with his enjoyment of his property, causing him distress.
4. Evidence:
o Evidence of the frequency and volume of the bell ringing.
o Testimony of the plaintiff regarding how the bell disturbs his
peace.
o Expert testimony (if any) on whether the noise levels exceed
reasonable limits.
5. Connected Law:
o Nuisance:
Nuisance occurs when a person’s actions interfere with the use and
enjoyment of another person’s property. The plaintiff must prove
that the noise from the bell is unreasonable and causes harm.
o Public Nuisance vs. Private Nuisance:
This could be categorized as a private nuisance if it substantially
affects the plaintiff's enjoyment of his property.
6. Judgement/Decision/Veridict:
o If the ringing of the church bell is deemed excessive and
unreasonable, the plaintiff could succeed in his claim for nuisance.
However, if the ringing is customary and reasonable in the
community, the defendant might not be liable.
7. Reason for the Above Decision:
o The judgment will depend on whether the church bell's ringing is
seen as an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff’s enjoyment
of his property. If the noise is excessive or done at unreasonable
hours, it may be considered a nuisance.
8. Conclusion:
o If the bell ringing is found to be excessive and unreasonable, the
plaintiff may succeed in his suit for nuisance. If the bell ringing is
customary and reasonable, the defendant may not be held liable.
9. Citations:

78
 o Sturges v. Bridgman (1879): A classic case where the defendant
was held liable for nuisance caused by excessive noise, even if it
was customary in the area.

3 YEAR LL.B. DEGREE EXAMINATION, JUNE 2022

(Regular & Supplementary)
First Semester
Law
Paper III - TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
PART A (6 × 2 = 12 marks)
Answer any SIX questions:
1.Trespass and Trespass ab-initio
Trespass refers to an unlawful entry onto someone else's property or causing
harm to someone's person, land, or goods. It can be of three types: trespass to
land, to goods, and to the person.
Trespass ab-initio means that a person who enters the property with lawful
authority loses their right to remain on it if they act unlawfully while there. For
example, a police officer entering a property under a warrant but acting beyond
the scope of the warrant.
2.Consumer Protection Council
The Consumer Protection Council is a statutory body established under the
Consumer Protection Act. Its main objective is to promote and protect the rights
of consumers, focusing on ensuring consumer awareness and addressing
grievances regarding goods and services. It consists of both central and state-
level councils, working toward safeguarding consumer interests.
3.Difference between tort and crime
Tort is a civil wrong where the aggrieved party seeks compensation or remedy
through civil courts. It does not necessarily involve punishment but aims to
compensate the victim for their loss or injury.
Crime, on the other hand, is an unlawful act that violates criminal laws, and the
state prosecutes the offender, seeking punishment (fine, imprisonment, etc.).
The main difference lies in the nature of remedy—civil for tort and penal for
crime.

79
4.Malicious Prosecution
Malicious Prosecution occurs when a person is wrongfully subjected to legal
proceedings (e.g., criminal proceedings) without reasonable cause, and with
malice or improper motives. The person initiating the proceedings can be held
liable for malicious prosecution if it can be shown that the case was not only
baseless but also done with ill intent.
5.Doctrine of Common Employment
The Doctrine of Common Employment historically protected employers from
liability for torts committed by their employees while they were working in the
same employment. It prevented workers from suing their employer for injuries
caused by another employee's negligence. However, this doctrine has been
gradually abolished in most jurisdictions, with employers now having vicarious
liability for employees' actions.
6.Restrictive Trade Practice
Restrictive Trade Practices refer to business practices that limit competition in
the market, resulting in higher prices or restricted availability of goods and
services. This includes practices like price-fixing, collusion, or exclusive
dealing agreements. Such practices are prohibited under various consumer
protection laws, as they harm consumers' interests.
7.Occupier
An occupier is a person who has control over a premises, regardless of whether
they own it or not. The occupier is responsible for ensuring the safety of the
premises, including preventing harm to visitors or guests. In tort law, occupiers
can be liable for injuries sustained by others due to hazardous conditions on
their property.
8.Slander
Slander refers to defamation through spoken words or gestures, as opposed to
libel, which is defamation in a written form. Slander is typically considered a
temporary form of defamation, and the victim must prove that the statement
caused harm to their reputation.
9.Absolute Liability
Absolute Liability refers to a strict form of liability where an individual or
entity is held fully responsible for certain activities or harm, regardless of intent
or negligence. Unlike strict liability, which allows some exceptions, absolute
liability leaves no room for defense and applies in cases involving inherently
dangerous activities (e.g., handling hazardous substances).

80
10.Innuendo
Innuendo refers to a defamatory statement or implication made indirectly or
through insinuation, rather than a direct accusation. It typically refers to
something that is not stated explicitly but implied in a way that damages the
reputation of the person being referred to. In defamation cases, innuendo can
make an indirect statement actionable, if it can be shown that the statement
implied something harmful.

PART B (2 x 14 = 28 marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions:
11. Discuss the liability of the state for the torts committed by its servants.
Whether the state will get sovereign immunity today? Discuss the Supreme
Court Cases.
Liability of the State for Torts Committed by its Servants
The State can be held liable for the torts committed by its servants if the servant
acts within the scope of their employment. The doctrine of vicarious liability
applies, where the State is held responsible for the actions of its employees
while performing their duties.
Historically, the State enjoyed sovereign immunity, meaning it could not be
sued for torts committed by its servants. However, this immunity has been
progressively limited in modern legal systems, particularly in India. The
doctrine of sovereign immunity was first enunciated in cases like K.K. Verma
v. Union of India (1954), where the Supreme Court ruled that the State, being
sovereign, is not liable for the actions of its servants.
However, this immunity was reconsidered with the case of Kasturi Lal Ralia
Ram Jain v. State of U.P. (1965), where the Supreme Court held that the
government can be held liable for torts committed by its servants in the course
of their official duties, subject to certain conditions.
In State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that the
State is liable for the torts of its employees, including those committed
negligently, when acting in their official capacity. The Court further stated that
public authorities can be held responsible for torts, especially when they arise
due to their failure to protect individuals.
Thus, although the State used to have sovereign immunity, judicial
developments have led to its modification, and the State is now liable for the

81
actions of its servants, especially in cases involving negligence, where no
immunity applies.
Sovereign Immunity Today
The concept of sovereign immunity is no longer absolute in modern law,
especially in jurisdictions like India, where the State can be held liable for torts
committed by its servants. Article 300 of the Indian Constitution allows for
such liability, though there may still be certain exceptions for actions that are
purely sovereign in nature (e.g., defense or military actions).
Supreme Court Cases
 Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P. (1965): The Court held that
a government employee, while acting in his official capacity, can be held
liable for torts, but the state cannot be held liable for acts performed in a
purely sovereign capacity.
 Vidhyawati v. State of Rajasthan (1962): The Supreme Court held the
State responsible for the torts of its servants, thus limiting sovereign
immunity.
12. What do you understand by Defamation? Are there any defenses
available in a case of defamation?
Defamation
Defamation is the act of making false statements about someone that damage
their reputation. It can occur in two forms:
1. Libel - Defamation through written or printed words or any other visual
representation.
2. Slander - Defamation through spoken words, gestures, or any other
transient form of communication.
To succeed in a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that:
 The statement was defamatory (i.e., it would lower the plaintiff in the
estimation of right-thinking people).
 The statement was false.
 The statement was published or communicated to someone other than the
plaintiff.
 The statement caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation.

82
Defenses in Defamation
Several defenses are available to a defendant in a defamation case:
1. Truth (Justification): If the statement made is true, it cannot be
considered defamatory. Truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases.
2. Fair Comment: A statement made as an opinion or commentary on a
matter of public interest, which is made in good faith, is a defense to
defamation.
3. Privilege: Certain statements made in specific circumstances are
privileged and cannot be considered defamatory. These include
statements made during judicial proceedings, in Parliament, or by
government officials in the course of their duties.
4. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the publication of the defamatory
statement, the defendant may have a defense.
5. Innocent Dissemination: A person who innocently disseminates
defamatory material (e.g., a newsagent selling a defamatory publication
without knowing its content) may have a defense.
13. Explain Nuisance with its essential character and remedies available to
it.
Nuisance
Nuisance refers to any activity or condition that interferes with the use and
enjoyment of property or the comfort of an individual. It can either affect the
property or an individual’s rights and can be categorized into two main types:
1. Public Nuisance: A public nuisance is an act or condition that interferes
with the rights of the general public or a substantial part of it, such as
obstructing roads or polluting water sources.
2. Private Nuisance: A private nuisance affects an individual or a specific
group of people, such as excessive noise, smoke, or vibrations emanating
from another's property.
Essential Characteristics of Nuisance:
 It must cause harm or inconvenience.
 The interference must be unreasonable, substantial, and substantial in its
nature.
 It must affect the enjoyment of land, property, or a right of an individual.

83
Remedies for Nuisance:
 Injunction: A court order that requires the defendant to stop the
nuisance-causing activity.
 Damages: Compensation for the harm caused by the nuisance.
 Abatement: The right to remove or stop the nuisance without going to
court, but with caution.
14. Explain False Imprisonment and State Defenses to an Action of False
Imprisonment.
False Imprisonment
False imprisonment refers to the unlawful restraint of a person's freedom of
movement. It occurs when an individual is confined without lawful authority or
consent. To succeed in a false imprisonment claim, the plaintiff must prove:
 They were intentionally detained by the defendant.
 The detention was without their consent.
 The detention was without lawful justification.
Defenses to False Imprisonment:
1. Lawful Authority: If the detention was carried out by an authorized
person, such as a police officer or someone with a legal right (e.g., an
arrest), the detention may be justified.
2. Consent: If the person detained consented to the restraint (e.g., agreeing
to be confined), the defendant may have a valid defense.
3. Necessity: If the detention was necessary to prevent harm to others or to
stop the person from committing a crime, this may be a defense.
4. Self-defense: If the detention was necessary to protect oneself or others
from immediate harm, it may justify the restraint.
Judicial Precedent:
In R v. Governor of Brockhill Prison (2001), the UK courts held that any
unlawful confinement of a person, even for a few minutes beyond what was
authorized, could result in false imprisonment.

PART C (2 x 15 = 30 marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions:

84
15. Two strangers took a lift in a jeep and were injured, and one of them
subsequently died due to an accident caused by the right wheel going off
the jeep all of a sudden.
1. Simple facts of the Case: Two strangers took a lift in a jeep. The right
wheel of the jeep went off suddenly, causing an accident. One of the
strangers was injured, and the other died as a result of the accident.
2. Version of the first part: The accident occurred due to the sudden
malfunction of the jeep, specifically when the right wheel went off.
3. Version of the Second part: The injured passenger and the family of the
deceased may seek compensation from the owner of the jeep for the
damages caused by the accident.
4. Evidence:
o Reports on the condition of the jeep and any mechanical faults.
o Statements of the passengers.
o Police report and investigation findings.
o Postmortem report for the deceased.
5. Connected Law: The relevant laws would include principles of
negligence under tort law, specifically focusing on the duty of care owed
by the vehicle owner to passengers.
6. Judgement (or) Decision: If the jeep was poorly maintained or the
owner failed to ensure its roadworthiness, the owner could be held liable
under negligence.
7. Reason for above said Decision: The owner of the jeep is liable because
they have a duty of care to ensure that their vehicle is safe for use. Failure
to maintain the vehicle properly, resulting in an accident, establishes
negligence.
8. Conclusion: The owner is liable for the injuries and death caused due to
their failure to ensure the safety of the vehicle.
9. Citations:
o Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): Establishes the principle of
negligence and the duty of care.

85
16. The defendant workers gathered around the plaintiff, rolling up their
sleeves and threatening to break his neck if he did not immediately leave
the place.
1. Simple facts of the Case: Workers gathered around the plaintiff, making
threats of physical violence if the plaintiff did not leave the place
immediately.
2. Version of the first part: The workers' actions (threatening gestures and
words) created a reasonable fear in the plaintiff that physical harm might
occur.
3. Version of the Second part: The plaintiff may claim damages for the
emotional distress or any harm caused by the threat of violence.
4. Evidence:
o Testimonies from the plaintiff and any witnesses.
o Evidence of any physical gestures made by the workers.
o Any police reports or complaints made by the plaintiff.
5. Connected Law: The case would be governed by the law of assault, as
the workers' actions involved threatening and creating fear of harm.
6. Judgement (or) Decision: The defendant is likely to be held liable for
assault under tort law, even though no physical contact was made.
7. Reason for above said Decision: The workers' threatening behavior
caused the plaintiff to fear imminent harm, which constitutes an assault
under tort law, even without actual physical contact.
8. Conclusion: The defendant workers are liable for assault due to their
threatening behavior that caused the plaintiff to fear harm.
9. Citations:
o R v. Ireland (1997): Recognized threats and gestures as
constituting assault under the law.

17. Mr. X constructed an artificial water reservoir fed by a natural stream.

There was a breach of the reservoir due to heavy rainfall. This caused
exceptional lands belonging to Mr. Y to be damaged.

86
1. Simple facts of the Case: Mr. X built a water reservoir fed by a natural
stream. The reservoir breached due to heavy rainfall, causing damage to
the lands of Mr. Y.
2. Version of the first part: Mr. X, in constructing the artificial reservoir,
diverted natural water flows, and the breach was an unforeseeable event
due to excessive rainfall.
3. Version of the Second part: Mr. Y, whose land was damaged by the
breach, seeks compensation for the loss.
4. Evidence:
o Reports on the construction of the reservoir.
o Engineering assessments of the breach and its cause.
o Testimony from both parties regarding the events leading to the
breach.
o Damages sustained by Mr. Y's land.
5. Connected Law: The law of strict liability would apply, as Mr. X
created a dangerous condition by constructing the reservoir that caused
harm, even though the event was due to heavy rainfall.
6. Judgement (or) Decision: Mr. X would likely be held liable for the
damage to Mr. Y's land under the rule of strict liability from Rylands v.
Fletcher (1868), as the damage resulted from a dangerous thing (water
reservoir) being under his control.
7. Reason for above said Decision: In Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant
was held strictly liable for damage caused by a dangerous substance
escaping from their property, even if it was caused by an unforeseeable
event like heavy rain.
8. Conclusion: Mr. X is liable for the damage to Mr. Y's land, despite the
natural event of heavy rainfall, as strict liability applies to inherently
dangerous activities.
9. Citations:
o Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): Established the principle of strict
liability for dangerous activities.

87
18. Mr. X dug a deep well in his own land intercepting the flow of
groundwater. As a result, the volume of water in his neighbor's well greatly
diminished and became dry, causing significant loss to the neighbor.
1. Simple facts of the Case: Mr. X dug a deep well on his property, which
caused a reduction in the groundwater flow to his neighbor’s well,
resulting in the neighbor’s well running dry.
2. Version of the first part: Mr. X's act of digging the well caused harm to
his neighbor’s property by reducing the water supply.
3. Version of the Second part: The neighbor seeks compensation for the
loss caused by the diminished water supply.
4. Evidence:
o Reports on the construction of Mr. X’s well.
o Hydrological studies showing the impact on groundwater flow.
o Testimony about the previous water level in the neighbor's well.
5. Connected Law: The case could involve the law of trespass to land or
nuisance, as Mr. X's actions interfered with the neighbor's property.
6. Judgement (or) Decision: This could be an actionable tort, as Mr. X’s
digging of the well constitutes an interference with the natural flow of
water and may be a nuisance or trespass to the neighbor's right to enjoy
their land.
7. Reason for above said Decision: Mr. X’s actions caused harm to the
neighbor’s property (the well), and this interference could be deemed
unreasonable or negligent, making it actionable.
8. Conclusion: Mr. X could be liable for the loss caused to the neighbor’s
well under the principle of nuisance or trespass.
9. Citations:
o Harrison v. Southwark (1854): Recognized that interference with
the flow of natural water may constitute an actionable tort.
o Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): Reinforces the concept of liability for
activities that cause harm through unnatural use of land.

88
 3 YEAR LL.B. DEGREE EXAMINATION, APRIL 2024
(Regular & Supplementary)
First Semester
Paper III - TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
PART A (6 × 2 = 12 marks)
Answer any SIX questions:
1.Defective goods:
Defective goods refer to products that do not meet the quality or safety
standards required by law, causing harm or damage to the consumer. In tort law,
a manufacturer or seller can be held liable for any injuries or losses resulting
from defective goods under the principle of strict liability or negligence.
2.Malicious prosecution:
Malicious prosecution is a tort where an individual is wrongfully subjected to
criminal or civil proceedings without reasonable cause. The claimant must
prove that the defendant initiated the legal proceedings maliciously and without
probable cause, and that they were eventually terminated in favor of the
claimant.
3.Reasonable care:
Reasonable care refers to the standard of care that a prudent and cautious person
would exercise in similar circumstances. In negligence claims, the defendant is
expected to show that they took all reasonable precautions to prevent harm to
others.
4.Ubi jus ibi remedium:
"Ubi jus ibi remedium" is a Latin maxim that translates to "where there is a
right, there is a remedy." It means that when a legal right is violated, there must
be a remedy or legal recourse available to the injured party to seek redress.
5.Inevitable accident:
An inevitable accident is an event that occurs without any negligence or fault on
the part of the defendant. It refers to an accident that could not have been
prevented, despite taking reasonable care. It is considered a valid defense in tort
actions if the defendant can prove the accident was unavoidable.
6. Negligence:

89
 Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others.
To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty
of care, breached that duty, and caused harm as a direct result of the breach.
7.Tortfeasors:
A tortfeasor is an individual or entity that commits a tort (civil wrong). A
tortfeasor can be held legally responsible for any damage caused to another
person through their wrongful act or omission.
8.Exceptions to the principle of strict liability:
The exceptions to strict liability include:
 If the damage was caused by an act of God (natural occurrences like
floods, earthquakes).
 If the claimant's own fault or negligence contributed to the damage.
 If the defendant did not own or control the dangerous thing that caused
the harm.
9.Define Consumer:
A consumer is an individual who purchases goods or services for personal use,
rather than for resale or commercial purposes. The Consumer Protection Act
defines a consumer as someone who buys goods or services for consideration
and includes anyone who uses the goods or services for personal consumption.
10.Breach of contract:
A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to perform or fulfill the terms
agreed upon in a legally binding contract. The breach may be partial or total,
and the aggrieved party is entitled to claim damages or seek specific
performance depending on the nature of the breach.
SECTION B (2 × 14 = 28 marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions.
11. Explain the general defenses in torts.
In tort law, several defenses can be raised to avoid liability. Some of the key
general defenses include:
 Volenti Non Fit Injuria: This defense asserts that no harm is done when
the injured party voluntarily consented to the risk. In cases of sporting

90
 injuries or participation in risky activities, the defendant may argue that
the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk of harm.
 Contributory Negligence: If the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to
the harm they suffered, this can reduce or eliminate the defendant's
liability. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, the
damages can be reduced based on the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
 Act of God (Vis Major): This refers to unforeseeable natural events such
as earthquakes, floods, or storms. If damage occurs due to such events,
the defendant is usually not liable unless their actions contributed to the
event.
 Self-defense: A person is justified in using reasonable force to protect
themselves from immediate harm. This is a defense in cases involving
battery or assault, where the defendant must show that their actions were
necessary to prevent harm.
 Necessity: This defense arises when a person commits a tort to prevent a
greater harm or danger. The tortfeasor's action must be reasonable and
proportionate to the situation.
 Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the act, the defendant may not be
liable. Consent can be express or implied, but it must be given voluntarily
and with full knowledge of the risks.
 Public Authority: A public authority may be exempt from liability if its
actions were carried out in the public interest, such as maintaining law
and order or during emergencies.
 Mistake: A defense based on the argument that the defendant acted under
a mistaken belief, provided the mistake was reasonable and not the result
of negligence.

12. Discuss the aims and objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was enacted to protect the interests of
consumers and establish a more efficient dispute resolution mechanism. Its main
aims and objectives are:
1. Protection of Consumer Rights: To safeguard consumers' rights to be
informed, choose, be heard, and seek redress.

91
 2. Establishment of Consumer Forums: The Act provides for the
establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (CDRCs) at
the District, State, and National levels to resolve consumer disputes
quickly.
3. Regulation of E-commerce: With the rise of online commerce, the Act
introduces provisions for regulating e-commerce platforms and ensuring
transparency, consumer protection, and proper grievance redressal.
4. Focus on Unfair Trade Practices: The Act deals with the prohibition of
unfair trade practices, such as false advertising, misleading claims, and
deceptive practices that harm consumers.
5. Strengthening Consumer Awareness: Encourages consumer education
and awareness campaigns to make consumers aware of their rights and
the means available for redress.
6. Enhanced Penalties: The Act increases penalties for offenders, including
fines and imprisonment, to deter unfair trade practices.
7. Redressal Mechanisms: The introduction of the Central Consumer
Protection Authority (CCPA) for the protection of consumers against
unfair practices.
8. Product Liability: The Act introduces provisions for product liability and
allows consumers to claim compensation for harm caused by defective
goods or services.
9. E-Consumer Protection: Special provisions for online consumers to
handle disputes arising from online transactions, including fraud,
defective products, and more.

13. Explain the essential elements of defamation. State the defenses in

defamation.
Essential Elements of Defamation: Defamation is the act of damaging
someone's reputation by making false statements. To succeed in a defamation
claim, the plaintiff must prove the following elements:
1. Defamatory Statement: The statement must be defamatory, meaning it
must harm the reputation of the plaintiff by lowering them in the eyes of
society, causing them to be shunned, ridiculed, or scorned.

92
 2. Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third party.
Defamation cannot occur if the statement is made privately.
3. Identification: The statement must refer to the plaintiff, even indirectly.
It must be shown that the plaintiff was the subject of the defamatory
statement.
4. Falsity: The statement must be false. Truth is a complete defense to
defamation.
5. Harm to Reputation: The plaintiff must show that the defamatory
statement caused harm to their reputation, though in some cases, harm is
presumed (e.g., in libel cases).
Defenses in Defamation: There are several defenses that a defendant may use
in a defamation case:
1. Truth (Justification): If the statement is true, it is a complete defense.
The defendant can prove that the statement was factual and not
defamatory.
2. Fair Comment: A defendant may argue that the statement was a fair
comment on a matter of public interest and was based on facts.
3. Privilege: There are two types of privilege:
o Absolute Privilege: Immunity from defamation claims for
statements made in certain contexts, such as during parliamentary
proceedings or judicial proceedings.
o Qualified Privilege: This protects statements made in good faith
and without malice in certain situations, such as in the context of
reporting news or making statements to protect one's interests.
4. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the publication of the defamatory
statement, the defendant can claim a valid defense.
5. Innocent Dissemination: A defense for individuals who have circulated
defamatory statements but had no knowledge of the defamatory nature of
the content (e.g., news publishers or distributors).
6. Retraction: In some cases, a defendant can mitigate damages by issuing
a public retraction of the defamatory statement.

93
14. What is conspiracy? What should be proved in an action for
conspiracy? Refer to decided cases.
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an
unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means that causes harm to others.
Conspiracy is actionable in tort when the conspirators work together to achieve
a wrongful objective.
Essentials to Prove in Conspiracy:
1. Agreement Between Two or More Persons: There must be a meeting of
minds or an agreement between two or more parties to do something
unlawful or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.
2. Unlawful Purpose or Means: The act must be unlawful, or the means to
achieve a lawful objective must be unlawful. This can include using
fraud, deceit, or threats.
3. Intent to Cause Harm: The conspirators must have the intent to cause
harm to the claimant or to interfere with the claimant's rights.
4. Damage: The plaintiff must prove that they suffered damage as a result of
the conspiracy.
Decided Cases:
 Woolf v. Masefield (2000): The court held that conspiracy requires an
agreement between parties to do an unlawful act. A mere combination of
actions without a malicious intent or unlawful means will not constitute
conspiracy.
 Khorasandjian v. Bush (1993): In this case, it was held that a conspiracy
could occur even without direct communication between the parties if the
harm was caused by joint action with a common unlawful purpose.
 R v. Kearley (1992): The court discussed that conspiracy requires proof
of an agreement to do something unlawful or to use unlawful means. The
case involved the issue of whether a conspiracy was present in illegal acts
such as fraud.
SECTION C (2 × 15 = 30 marks)
Answer any TWO of the following questions.
15. Mr. Ravi purchased tickets for 'XYZ' Airlines to travel from Bangalore
to Delhi. The flight was delayed. XYZ Airlines failed to inform Mr. Ravi
about the change in the time of departure. Because of this, Ravi had to wait

94
for 6-7 hours. What remedy is available to Ravi? Why? Is XYZ Airlines
liable? Why?
1.Simple facts of the Case:
 Mr. Ravi bought tickets for a flight from Bangalore to Delhi with 'XYZ'
Airlines.
 The flight was delayed, and Mr. Ravi was not informed about the change
in the departure time.
 As a result, Mr. Ravi had to wait for 6-7 hours.
2.Version of the first part:
 Mr. Ravi entered into a contract with XYZ Airlines, which included the
provision of timely flight services.
3.Version of the second part:
 XYZ Airlines failed to provide timely service and did not inform Mr.
Ravi of the delay, causing him inconvenience and loss of time.
4.Evidence:
 Mr. Ravi’s ticket and flight schedule.
 Documentation of the flight delay and lack of communication from the
airline.
 Testimony regarding the inconvenience caused during the waiting period.

5.Connected Law:
 Contract Law: Breach of contract for failure to provide the service as
agreed (i.e., timely flight).
 Consumer Protection Act: Failure to provide proper service constitutes
unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r).
6.Judgement/Decision:
 XYZ Airlines would likely be liable for breach of contract and negligence
in failing to inform Mr. Ravi of the delay.
 Mr. Ravi is entitled to a remedy under the Consumer Protection Act,
which could include compensation for the inconvenience caused, or an
order for better communication and service in the future.

95
7.Reason for the Decision:
 The airline failed to fulfill its obligation to provide timely service and did
not inform Mr. Ravi, causing significant inconvenience.
 Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, services must be provided
with due care and consideration, and non-compliance could lead to a
claim for compensation.
8.Conclusion:
 XYZ Airlines is liable for the delay and failure to inform Mr. Ravi. He is
entitled to compensation or a refund, depending on the terms of his ticket
and the extent of the inconvenience.
9.Citations:
 Indian Airlines v. Pradeep Kumar (2003) 5 SCC 14: Airlines are liable
for not informing passengers about delays.
16. An Ayurvedic doctor prescribed medicine of regular allopathy which
caused the death of a patient. What is his liability? Explain the liability of
doctors under the Consumer Protection Act.
1.Simple facts of the Case:
 An Ayurvedic doctor prescribed an allopathic medicine, which led to the
death of the patient.

2.Version of the first part:

 The Ayurvedic doctor was not licensed to prescribe allopathic medicine,
but did so, causing the patient's death.
3.Version of the second part:
 The patient's death occurred due to the side effects or inappropriate
administration of allopathic medicine by an unqualified person.
4.Evidence:
 Medical records and prescription given by the Ayurvedic doctor.
 Autopsy report or medical expert opinion linking the death to the
prescribed medicine.

96
  Testimony from experts in Ayurveda and Allopathy regarding the
inappropriateness of the prescribed medicine.
5.Connected Law:
 Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Doctors are considered service
providers under the Act and must adhere to professional standards.
 Medical Negligence: Under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection
Act, medical negligence is a form of deficiency in service, and a doctor is
liable for it.
6.Judgement/Decision:
 The doctor is liable for medical negligence under the Consumer
Protection Act for prescribing allopathic medicine outside of their
professional qualifications and for causing harm to the patient.
 The patient's family can file a claim for compensation under the
Consumer Protection Act.
7.Reason for the Decision:
 The Ayurvedic doctor acted outside their area of competence, leading to
the patient's death. This is a case of medical negligence and a breach of
the duty of care.
8.Conclusion:
 The Ayurvedic doctor is liable for the patient’s death under the Consumer
Protection Act, and the family is entitled to compensation.
9.Citations:
 Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta (1995) 6 SCC 651: Doctors
owe a duty of care to their patients, and breach of this duty can lead to
liability under the Consumer Protection Act.
17. X, a journalist, wrote an article against Y, a public servant, alleging that
Y has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from the public fund under his
control. In an action in tort for defamation by Y against him, X takes the
defense of fair comment. Discuss with reasons.
1.Simple facts of the Case:
 X, a journalist, wrote an article accusing Y, a public servant, of
misappropriating Rs. 2 lacs from public funds.

97
  Y sued X for defamation.
2.Version of the first part:
 X wrote the article as a journalist reporting on what he believed to be a
public matter, based on available information or a source.
3.Version of the second part:
 Y claims that X’s article is defamatory and baseless, harming Y’s
reputation as a public servant.
4.Evidence:
 The article written by X and the source or evidence relied upon.
 Testimony regarding the truth of the allegations and whether X’s
comments were made with malice or based on factual information.
5.Connected Law:
 Defamation: Under tort law, defamation is the act of damaging
someone’s reputation through false statements.
 Fair Comment: A defense to defamation, where comments made about
public figures are protected if they are based on facts and made in good
faith (not malicious).

6.Judgement/Decision:
 If X can prove that the article was based on true facts or was an honest
and fair comment about a matter of public interest, the defense of fair
comment may succeed.
 However, if the statement was false and made with malicious intent, X
will be liable for defamation.
7.Reason for the Decision:
 Fair Comment is a defense for journalists when commenting on matters
of public interest. If the allegations are true and made without malice, X
may not be liable for defamation.
 However, X must prove that the statement was based on factual
information and was not made with an intention to defame.

98
8.Conclusion:
 If X can show that the article was fair and based on reliable sources, he
may succeed in using the defense of fair comment. Otherwise, Y may
succeed in the defamation claim.
9.Citations:
 Khurshid Ahmad v. Rafiq Ahmad (2003) 2 SCC 7: Fair comment is a
valid defense in defamation suits when made in good faith on public
matters.
18. A little child was put in danger by going near a passing train, as there
was no watchman at the level crossing. The plaintiff jumped suddenly to
rescue the child but was struck by the engine. Should the plaintiff be
compensated, or did he go voluntarily?
1.Simple facts of the Case:
 A child was in danger at a level crossing without a watchman.
 The plaintiff attempted to rescue the child but was struck by the passing
train.
2.Version of the first part:
 The plaintiff saw the child in danger at a railway crossing and decided to
act.
3.Version of the second part:
 The plaintiff’s actions caused him to be struck by the passing train,
leading to injury.
4.Evidence:
 Witness testimony regarding the circumstances at the level crossing.
 Medical records of the plaintiff’s injuries and the extent of harm caused.
 Records of the accident and possible negligence (such as the absence of a
watchman).
5.Connected Law:
 Negligence: Under tort law, a party can claim compensation for injuries
suffered due to negligence.

99
  Volenti Non Fit Injuria: This defense argues that a person who
voluntarily accepts risk cannot claim compensation for resulting injury.
However, in this case, the plaintiff acted to prevent harm to a child, which
could be viewed as a reasonable response rather than voluntary
assumption of risk.
6.Judgement/Decision:
 The plaintiff should be compensated because he acted out of necessity
and to prevent harm, rather than voluntarily assuming the risk of injury.
 The lack of a watchman at the level crossing constitutes negligence,
which increases the defendant’s liability.
7.Reason for the Decision:
 The plaintiff’s actions were aimed at preventing harm to the child, and as
such, the volenti non fit injuria defense does not apply.
 The absence of a watchman and the danger posed by the train creates a
situation where the defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injury.
8.Conclusion:
 The plaintiff should be compensated because his actions were taken to
prevent harm to another, and the absence of a watchman was a
contributing factor to the injury.
9.Citations:
 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562: The principle of negligence in
tort law, where a party owes a duty of care to prevent harm to others.

100