Law of Torts II: Strict and Absolute Liability, Tortious Liability of the State, the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Competition Act 2002
2. Tortious liability of the State
Article 300 provides that the Union and the States may sue and be sued, and that their liability is the same as that of the Dominion of India and the Provinces before the Constitution, which in turn traced back to the East India Company. In Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v Secretary of State for India (1861) the Supreme Court of Calcutta distinguished sovereign functions, for which the State was immune, from non-sovereign functions a private person could perform, for which it was liable. Indian courts have applied and then narrowed that distinction.
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati (1962) | The State was liable for the rash driving of a government jeep, used for the Collector, that killed a pedestrian; a welfare State cannot claim immunity for such acts |
| Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) | The State was not liable when police misappropriated gold seized from a trader, because the power to arrest, search and seize is a sovereign power |
| N. Nagendra Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) | The sovereign-immunity doctrine has lost its relevance except for functions such as defence, foreign affairs and legislation; the State is liable for the negligence of its officers in seizing and keeping goods |
| Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993) | Compensation under Articles 32 and 226 for violation of fundamental rights is a public-law remedy based on strict liability, to which sovereign immunity is no defence |
3. The Consumer Protection Act 2019 (the syllabus's "1986 Act")
The Consumer Protection Act 1986 is repealed. It was replaced by the Consumer Protection Act 2019, whose main provisions came into force on 20 July 2020. A "consumer" (section 2(7)) is a person who buys goods or hires services for consideration, including through offline or online transactions by electronic means, teleshopping, direct selling or multi-level marketing; a person who obtains goods for resale or for a commercial purpose is excluded, except where he uses them exclusively to earn his livelihood by self-employment. The six consumer rights (section 2(9)) are the rights to be protected against hazardous goods and services, to be informed, to be assured access to a variety at competitive prices, to be heard, to seek redressal, and to consumer awareness. The courts had already read "service" widely under the 1986 Act: housing construction by a development authority (Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta, 1993) and medical services, except free services (Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha, 1995).
| Feature | Consumer Protection Act 2019 |
|---|---|
| Central Consumer Protection Authority | A regulator established under section 10 to protect consumers as a class: it can order recalls, discontinue unfair trade practices, act against false or misleading advertisements and impose penalties on manufacturers and endorsers |
| Commissions | District, State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (the 1986 Act's District Forum became a Commission) |
| Pecuniary jurisdiction since the 2021 Rules | By the value of goods or services paid as consideration: District up to ₹50 lakh; State above ₹50 lakh up to ₹2 crore; National above ₹2 crore (the Act as enacted had set ₹1 crore and ₹10 crore) |
| Where to file | Where the complainant resides or personally works, as well as where the opposite party resides or the cause of action arose; electronic filing is permitted |
| Product liability | Chapter VI makes the product manufacturer, product service provider and product seller liable for harm caused by a defective product or deficient service, on specified grounds, without proof of negligence |
| E-commerce and mediation | E-commerce is covered, with the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020; disputes may be referred to court-annexed mediation; unfair contract terms can be declared void by the State and National Commissions |
| Limitation | Two years from the date on which the cause of action arose |
4. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988: no-fault liability, third-party insurance and claims tribunals
As enacted, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 provided three routes to compensation for accident victims: interim no-fault liability under section 140 (₹50,000 for death and ₹25,000 for permanent disablement, without proof of fault), compensation on a structured formula under section 163A with the Second Schedule (added in 1994), and a full claim based on fault before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, constituted under section 165, on an application under section 166. Third-party insurance is compulsory for every vehicle used in a public place, and the insurer must satisfy awards against the insured. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019 substantially recast this scheme. It replaced the older no-fault and structured-formula provisions with a fault-free compensation of ₹5 lakh for death and ₹2.5 lakh for grievous hurt, which the claimant need not prove was caused by any wrongful act, neglect or default; raised hit-and-run compensation (to ₹2 lakh for death and ₹50,000 for grievous hurt under the scheme framed in 2022); created a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund; provided for cashless treatment during the "golden hour"; and protected Good Samaritans who help accident victims. Claims before the Tribunal under section 166 remain the route for full, fault-based compensation.
- Compensation for death is computed on the multiplier method: annual loss of dependency multiplied by an age-based multiplier (Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009), with future prospects added for the deceased's income (National Insurance Co v Pranay Sethi, 2017, a Constitution Bench).
- The Claims Tribunal is a substitute for the civil court for accident claims and follows a summary procedure.
5. The Competition Act 2002
| Provision | Rule |
|---|---|
| Section 3: anti-competitive agreements | Agreements causing or likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India are void. Horizontal agreements between competitors that fix prices, limit output, share markets or rig bids are presumed to have that effect (section 3(3)); vertical agreements such as tie-in arrangements, exclusive supply and distribution, refusal to deal and resale price maintenance are judged by a rule of reason (section 3(4)) |
| Section 4: abuse of dominant position | Dominance itself is lawful; its abuse is prohibited, such as unfair or discriminatory prices or conditions (including predatory pricing), limiting production or technical development, denial of market access, and using dominance in one market to enter another |
| Sections 5 and 6: combinations | Acquisitions, mergers and amalgamations above asset or turnover thresholds must be notified to the Competition Commission of India, and a combination causing an appreciable adverse effect on competition is void |
| Enforcement | The Competition Commission of India investigates through its Director General and imposes penalties; appeals lie to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (which absorbed the Competition Appellate Tribunal in 2017) and then to the Supreme Court |
The Competition (Amendment) Act 2023 made four changes that are regularly examined. It added a deal-value threshold, so that a transaction worth more than ₹2,000 crore must be notified if the target has substantial business operations in India, which catches digital acquisitions whose targets have low assets and turnover. It introduced settlements and commitments, letting parties under investigation for vertical agreements or abuse of dominance offer remedies and close proceedings. It shortened the overall time limit for approving combinations from 210 to 150 days. And it brought hub-and-spoke cartels (facilitated by a party not in the same line of business) within the presumption of section 3(3), while allowing penalties to be calculated on global turnover.
Key takeaways
- Rylands v Fletcher (1868) is strict liability with exceptions; M.C. Mehta (Oleum gas, 1987) created absolute liability for hazardous enterprises, with no exceptions and deterrent damages.
- State liability runs through Article 300 and the P&O case (1861): Vidyawati (1962) liable, Kasturi Lal (1965) immune for sovereign functions, Nagendra Rao (1994) narrowing immunity, Nilabati Behera (1993) public-law compensation.
- The Consumer Protection Act 1986 named in the syllabus is repealed; the 2019 Act (in force 20 July 2020) adds the CCPA (s.10), product liability, e-commerce and mediation; limits since 2021 are ₹50 lakh and ₹2 crore by value paid.
- The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 was recast in 2019: fault-free compensation of ₹5 lakh for death and ₹2.5 lakh for grievous hurt, higher hit-and-run sums, an accident fund and golden-hour treatment; section 166 claims before the Tribunal remain.
- The Competition Act 2002 prohibits anti-competitive agreements (s.3), abuse of dominance (s.4) and harmful combinations (ss.5–6); the 2023 amendment added a ₹2,000 crore deal-value threshold, settlements and commitments, and a 150-day review limit.
Practice questions (10)
Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.
The Consumer Protection Act 1986, named in the syllabus, has been:
Show answer
Answer: D — Repealed and replaced by the Consumer Protection Act 2019
The 1986 Act was repealed by the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which came into force on 20 July 2020. It was not amended into survival, merged with competition law, or struck down.Under the pecuniary limits revised in 2021 under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, a complaint where the value of goods paid as consideration is ₹1.5 crore lies before:
Show answer
Answer: C — The State Commission
Since the 2021 Rules, the District Commission hears complaints up to ₹50 lakh, the State Commission above ₹50 lakh up to ₹2 crore, and the National Commission above ₹2 crore; ₹1.5 crore falls in the State band. The CCPA is a regulator, not an adjudicating commission for individual complaints.Assertion (A): The Consumer Protection Act 1986 remains the principal consumer protection statute in India. Reason (R): The Consumer Protection Act 2019 came into force on 20 July 2020. Choose the correct option.
Show answer
Answer: D — A is false, but R is true
A is false: the 1986 Act named in the syllabus was repealed by the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which is now the principal statute. R is true: the 2019 Act's main provisions came into force on 20 July 2020, adding the CCPA, product liability and e-commerce.In which case was the State held not liable for the misappropriation, by police officers, of gold seized from a trader, on the ground that the power was sovereign?
Show answer
Answer: B — Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v State of Uttar Pradesh (1965)
Kasturi Lal applied sovereign immunity to the police power of seizure. Vidyawati held the State liable for a government driver's negligence, Nagendra Rao confined sovereign immunity, and Nilabati Behera awarded public-law compensation for a custodial death.Which of the following are features of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 that the 1986 Act lacked? Select all that apply.
Show answer
Answer: A — A chapter on product liability; C — Mediation of consumer disputes; D — A Central Consumer Protection Authority as regulator
The CCPA, product liability and mediation are new in 2019. The three-tier structure (district, State and national) existed under the 1986 Act as well; the 2019 Act renamed the District Forum a Commission.Under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 as amended in 2019, the fault-free compensation payable for death in a motor accident is:
Show answer
Answer: D — ₹5 lakh
The 2019 amendment set fault-free compensation at ₹5 lakh for death and ₹2.5 lakh for grievous hurt. ₹50,000 was the original no-fault sum for death under section 140, and ₹2 lakh is the hit-and-run compensation for death.Which of the following were introduced by the Competition (Amendment) Act 2023? Select all that apply.
Show answer
Answer: A — A shorter overall review period of 150 days for combinations; B — A deal-value threshold of ₹2,000 crore for notifying combinations; D — Settlements and commitments
The deal-value threshold, settlements and commitments, and the 150-day limit are 2023 changes. The prohibition of abuse of dominance has been in section 4 since the Act was passed in 2002.Assertion (A): Horizontal agreements between competitors to fix prices are presumed to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition. Reason (R): All vertical agreements are void per se under the Competition Act 2002. Choose the correct option.
Show answer
Answer: C — A is true, but R is false
A is true under section 3(3). R is false: vertical agreements listed in section 3(4) are void only if they cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition, judged by a rule of reason using the factors in section 19(3).In Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha (1995), the Supreme Court held that:
Show answer
Answer: A — Medical services for consideration are "services" under consumer law, but wholly free services are not
The Court brought medical services rendered for payment within consumer law, while excluding services rendered free of charge to everyone. Patients in hospitals that charge some patients may also be covered, because the free service is paid for by the others.Under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Central Consumer Protection Authority is established under which section? Type the section number.
Numerical answer — type the value.
Show answer
Answer: 10
Section 10 establishes the CCPA to regulate matters relating to violation of the rights of consumers, unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements that prejudice the interests of the public and consumers as a class.