NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

Reading Material

B.A.LL.B.(HONS.) DEGREE PROGRAMME

SEMESTER–I (JULY-NOVEMBER)
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-18

1.2 LAW OF TORTS

Designed and Developed by:

Dr. Ragini Khubalkar, Assistant Professor of Law
Dr. Anirban Chakraborty, Associate Professor of Law
Dr. V.P. Tiwari, Associatet Professor of Law

Course Instructors:
Dr. Ragini Khubalkar, Assistant Professor of Law
Dr. Anirban Chakraborty, Associate Professor of Law
Dr. V.P. Tiwari, Associate Professor of Law

(Strictly for Private Circulation)

B.A.LL.B.(HONS.) DEGREE PROGRAMME

1
 ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-18

1.2 LAW OF TORT

Semester –I July-November 2017
Course Code 1.2
Course Credit 4
Maximum Marks 100
Teaching Hours 66-68
Tutorials 18-20
Project Presentation 14-16
Medium of Instruction English
Course Mandatory

Course Objectives:

Law of Tort deals with breach of some duty, independent of contract, giving rise to a
civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable. The basic principle
underlying tort law is the concept of duty of care towards everybody, which is impliedly
imposed under law. Tort law provides the foundational basis for civil liability arising from
absolute and non-delegable duty to the community. It is therefore an imperative to expose the
students of First Year LL.B program to the core legal principles, rules and jurisprudence of law
of Tort.
With this objective in mind this course begins with a discussion on the nature, scope
and philosophical foundation of Tort; various principles giving rise to liability in Tort, general
defenses and remedies. It then engages with specific torts e.g. trespass, nuisance, negligence
and defamation. The course further covers the emerging torts such toxic tort, advance
negligence, constitutional tort, breach of confidentiality and cyber tort. Finally it introduces to
the area of liabilities under the Consumer Protection Act and Motor Vehicles Act.

Teaching Methodology:

The course will be taught by blending lecture and case method. The students are
informed in advance the topic for discussion and the topic of project/assignment they have to
prepare. Further students will be engaged in the class in group exercise and simulations.
Students are also required to undertake research to develop independent thinking. It will be
supervised by the faculty on an assigned topic and prepare a project report.

Course Evaluation Method:

The Course is assessed for 100 Marks in total by a close book examination system.
There shall be a Mid-Semester Exam for 20 Marks of Seventy Five Minutes and End
Semester Exam for 50 Marks of Two Hours. 25 Marks are assigned for the Project (out of
which 20 marks for the written report and 5 marks for presentation) and 5 marks for
attendance.

Expected Learning Outcomes of the Course:

On completion of the Course the students are expected -
 To gain an appreciation of the theory and philosophy behind the common law of
torts and the evolving Indian jurisprudence;

2
  To develop an understanding of the principal doctrines of tort law and to be able
to thoroughly analyze torts problems; and
 To understand the evolutionary and dynamic nature of Tort and can effectively
apply its principles in context of present-day problems through your knowledge
and advocacy skills.

COURSE OUTLINE

MODULE 1
Nature and Scope and Theories of Law of Tort
(Class Hours- 12)
Module Overview
This introductory module discusses the nature, scope, definition, significance and essentials
elements for incurring liability in Torts. It then compares torts liability with criminal and
other forms of civil liabilities. Lastly it covers the concepts of Mental Element and the
General Defenses.
Detailed Outline:
 Origin and Development of Law of Torts in England and in India
 Function of Law of Torts- Prescribing standards of human conduct, redressal of
wrongs by payment of compensation, injunction.
 Distinction of Tort with other branches of law
 Definition of Tort; Constituents of Tort –
 Wrongful act,
 Legal damage– Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria –
 Remedy-Ubi jus ibi remedium
 Common Elements of wrongdoing: act, omission, Malice, intention, motive and
recklessness
 Capacity to Sue and be Sued (Joint Tort Frasers)
 Justification of Torts:
 Consent as defence – Volenti non fit injuria –Plaintiff the wrongdoer
 Inevitable accidents
 Statutory authority
 Act of God
 Mistake
 Necessity
 Private defense

Reading List
A. Case Laws

 Action v. Blunndell (1843) 12 M & W 324

 Anderson v. Marshall (1835) 13 s 1130
 Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Lord Raym 938- (injuria sine damno)
 Barnes v. Ward (1850) 9 CB 392
 Beaudert Shire Council v. Smith (1966) 120 CLR 145
 Bird v. Holbrook (1828)4 bing 628- (No man can do indirectly that which he is
forbidden to do directly).
 Brown v. Kendal (1859) 6 292
3
  Chairman Railway Board V Chandrima Das (2000)2SCC465-( Difference
between Crime and Tort)
 Corr v. IBC Vehicles (2008) 2 ALL ER 943
 F.V. West Berkshire Health Authority(1990)2 AC1(Necessity)
 Gloucester Grammar School case (1410) YB 11-(Damnum sine injuria)
 Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1932) 1 KB 205
 Haynes v. Harwood (1935) 1 KB 146atwell (1965) AC 656 (Volenti Non Fit
Injuria)
 Haynes v. Harwood (1935) 1 KB 146
 Imperial chemical industries Ltd.V. Sh
 Jackson v. Harrison (1978) 138 CLR 438
 Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. V. State of Gujarat (1994)5SCC1-(Definition and
ingredients of Tort)
 Manchester Corporation v. Farnworth (1930) AC 171
 Mayor of Bradford Corpn. V. Pickles (1895) AC 587
 Morris V. Murray(1991)2 QB 6; Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. V. Shatwell
(19165) AC656(Volenti non fit injuria);
 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) SC 28
 Nalini Kant Sinha v. State of Bihar AIR 1993 SC 1358
 P. Seetharamayya v. G Mahalakshmamma, AIR 1958 AP 103
 Pitts V Hunt (1991)1QB24 (ex tupi Causa Non Oriture Actio-Justification of
Torts)
 Rex v. Newport (1929) 2 KB 416 (Quasi Parental authority)
 Salaman v. Secretary of State of India (1906) KB 613
 Smith v. Charles and Sons (1891) AC 325 HL
 Stanley v. Powell (1891) 1 QB 86
 State for India in Council v. KamacheeBoye Saheba (1959) 7 MIA 477
 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Govardhanlal Pitti (2003) 3 SCALE 107( land was
needed for a public purpose)
 State of Saurashtra v. Mohd. Abdullah (1962) SC 455
 Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1975 All 132
 Vohra Sadikabhai and others V State of Gujrat and others AIR2016 SC 2429;2016
(5)SCALE534;2016 Indlaw SC 371(Act of God)
 White v. John Warrick & Co. Ltd., (1953) 2 All ER 1021
 Woodley V. Metropolitan District Railway Co. (1877) 2Ex D384(Volenti non fit
injuria);
 Woolridge V. Sumner (1963)2 QB 43(Volenti non fit injuria)
B. Compulsory and suggested readings
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s the Law of Torts’, 27th Ed. 2016, PP 1-32, 33-71, 75-105
 Winfield Percy Henry, Jolowicz T.A. and T. Lewis Ellis, ‘Winfield on Torts’, 19 th
Ed. 2014, PP 1-87, 987-104, 1097-1131, 1141-1163, 1165-1168-1175
 Salmond John Willian, Heuston R.F.V., ‘Salmond on the Law of Tort, 16th Ed., PP
1-26, 504-541
Project Components: As per list
Tutorial Components: Rights and basis of law of torts; Philosophical and Moral base for
Law of Torts; Applicability of Act of God justification in contemporary position.

MODULE-2
4
Liabilities in Torts

(Class Hours- 12)

Module Overview:

Module Two of the Course deals with different forms of liability and the position of the
concept in England and India. It further elaborates the theoretical aspect of No-fault and
vicarious liability in detail and applicability of it in the contemporary age/ state.

Detailed Outline:
 Fault based liability
 No-fault Liability-
 Strict Liability: Rylands v. Fletcher Rule
 Absolute liability: Rule pronounced in M.C Meheta Case
 Toxic Torts
 MNC/ TNCs and the responsibility- Allien Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. §
1350)
 Liability under modern legislations- The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
 Constitutional Torts including the compensatory jurisprudence in India
 Vicarious Liability :-
 Definition
 Qui Facit pler aliumfacit per se,
 Resondeat superior
 Principal and Agent,
 Master and Servant,
 Doctrine of Common Employment,
 Vicarious Liability of the State, Position in England and Position in India
(Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and its relevance in India)
 Remedies: Damages, Injunction and Specific Restitution of Property
 Discharge of Torts- Death in relation to Tort- ‘Actio personalis moritur cum
personal’; Waiver and acquiescence; Accord and satisfaction; Judgment recovered
and Statutes of Limitation
Project components: As per list
Tutorial Components:

Reading List
A. Case Laws

 Anuradha Saha case CIVIL APPEARL NO. 2867 OF 2012 (Vicarious Liability)
 Benjamin v. Storr (1874) LR 9 CP 400
 BhanwarKanwar Vs R.K. Gupta; (2013) 4 SCC 252
 Bhim Sigh v. State of J & K AIR 1986 SC 4949 (False Imprisonment) / 1986 Cri. L J
192/ 1985 (2) SCALE 1117/ (1985) 4 SCC 677/ 1986 (1) UJ 458 SC
 Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather Plc, [1994] 1 All E.R. 53 (H.L.)
(Strict Liability-Toxic Tort)
 Campbell v. Padington Corporation (1911) 1 KB 869
 Caparo Industries plc V Dickman [1990]1ALL ER 568(HL),[1990]2AC605

5
 Cassidy v. Minister of Health (1951) 1 ALL ER 574
 Chairman Railway Board v. Mrs. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465 (Constitutional
Torts)
 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613(Absolute Liability)
 Hambrook V. Stokes Bros. (1924) All er REP. 110
 Hamlyn v. Houston & Co. Ltd. (1903) 1 KB 81
 Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. V Heller & Parteners Ltd. (1964) AC 465
 Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. (1970) ALL ER 294
 Jay Laxmi Salt Works v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1 (Definition of Tortious
Liability)
 Jocob Mathew v. State of Panjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1
 Kasturi Lal vs. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 1039 (Sovereign Liability)
 King V. Phillips (1953) 1 QB 429
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 (Absolute Liability)
 Marcie v. Thames Water Utlities Ltd., (2002) 2 All ER 55
 MCD vs. Uphar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 173(Constitutional
Torts)
 Medical Negligence case : 1.8 crore compensation for missing Rationopathy Screen,
2nd July 2015
 Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd. (1946) 2 All
ER 345
 Mills v. Broker (1919) 22 Bom LR 790
 Municipal Corpn of Delhi v. Subhagwati, AIR 1966 SC 1750
 N. Nagendra Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh., AIR 1994 SC 2663(Liability of State)
 Nelabati Bohra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 1960
 Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960 (Constitutional Torts)
 Norton v. Schoolefield (1842) 9 M & W 665
 Page v. Smith (1995) 2 ALL ER 736
 Radcliffe v. Ribble Motor Services Ltd. (1939) AC 215
 Reads v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. (1947) AC 156
 Rickards v. Lothian (1913) AC 263
 Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086
 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330
 Rylands v. Fletcher, [1861-73] All E.R. Rep. 1 1866 (Strict Liability)
 Santa Garg v. Director National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56
 Sebastian Hongary v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 571
 Shri Uttam Sarkarvs The Management of Tura Christian (2014) Complaing Case No.
CC/1/2006
 Smt. Kalawati v. State of H.P. AIR 1989 HP 5
 State of Rajasthan vs. Vidyawati, AIR 1962 SC 933 (Sovereign Liability)
 The Municipal Board, Lucknow v. Mussammat Ram Dei (1940) 1LR 16
 Union Carbide Corp. vs Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584(Absolute Liability-Toxic
Tort)
 Wilson v. Tumman (1843) 6 MG 236
 V. Krishan Raovs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital (2010) SLP (C) No. 15084/2009)
Vicarious Liability

6
 C. Compulsory readings
 Ramaswamy Iyer’s,, Law of Torts, 10th Ed. 2007, PP 669-671,737-759, 765-766,
767-777, 792-798, 867-879, 687-693, 967-970, 990-994
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s the Law of Torts’, 27th Ed. 2016, PP 30-33, 43-60, 488-
505, 143-170, 180-208, 215-225, 107-112, 137-141.
 Salmond J. W., Heuston R.F.V. ‘Salmond on the Law of Torts’, 11 th Ed., PP 318-
322, 322-336
 Winfield Percy Henry, Jolowicz T.A. and T. Lewis Ellis, ‘ Winfield on Torts’, 19 th
Ed. 2014, PP 149-305, 705-762, 763-798, 943-986.

D. Suggested readings.
 A. Zahid, The Rylands v. Fletcher Rule and the Modern Trend, 5 DULJ
181(1994)
 John C.O'Quinn, Not-So-Strict Liability: A Foreseeability Test for Rylands V
Fletcher and Other Lessons From Cambridge Water Co. V Eastern Counties
Leather Plc, 24 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 287 (2000)
 K C. Joshi, Compensation Through Writs: Rudul Saha to Meheta, 30 JILI
(Issue:1) 69, (1988)
 M. Galanter, Second M.K Nambyar Endowment Lecture 2014 on From Bhopal to
Saha: The Elusive Promise of Effective Legal Remedy, 5 JILS 139 (2013-14)
 R. Meeran, Tort Litigation against Multinational Corporations for Violation of
Human Rights: An Overview of the Position Outside the United States, 3 City
University of Hong Kong Law Review (Issue:1) 41 (2011)
 Ravindra K. Singh, Liability of the State for Torts Committed by its Servants:
Public Law and Private Law Perspective, GJLDP Apr. 2016, at 25
 S. Sripada, The Multinational Corporations and Environmental Issues, 31 JILI
(Issue:4) 534, (1989)
 S. Yadav, State Liability: A New Dimension from Rudul Saha, 43 JILI (Issue:4)
559 (2001)

MODULE 3
Specific Torts – Trespass, Negligence and Nuisance

(Class Hours- 12)

Module Overview

Module Three of the course contains the important topics like ‘Trespass’. It deals with
essential elements of different types of trespass. This module further deals with the theories
of negligence and its concept under law of Torts along with its essentials. While dealing with
it special reference is given to the concept of advanced negligence and remoteness of
damage. This module will also deal with specific torts like the torts of ‘Nuisance’, ‘False
Imprisonment’ and ‘Malicious Prosecution’ objectively along with its related remedies and
its jurisprudential aspects.

7
Detailed Outline
 Trespass
 Trespass to Person: Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment
 Trespass to Land
 Negligence –
 Basic Principles: Duty of Care and Breach of duty
 Damage: Causation and Remoteness
 Proof of Negligence – Res ipsa loquitor
 Contributory Negligence
 Advanced Negligence
 Nervous shocks ( Remoteness of damage)
 Psychiatric illness and tortious liability
 Professional Negligence
 Nuisance- Private and Public
 Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of legal Procedure

Project components: As per list

Tutorial Components:

Reading List
A. Case Laws

 Babulal v. Ghashiram (1970) MPWR 845

 Bell v Stone (1798) 1 B 331
 Bhim Sigh v. State of J & K AIR 1986 SC 4949 (False Imprisonment) / 1986 Cri.
L J 192/ 1985 (2) SCALE 1117/ (1985) 4 SCC 677/ 1986 (1) UJ 458 SC
 Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742 (False Imprisonment)
 Brown v Hawkerss (1891) 2 QB 718
 Caparo Industries plc V Dickman [1990]1ALL ER 568(HL)(Negligence)
/[1990]2AC605
 Christic V. Davey (1893)1 Ch 316 (Nuisance)
 Cohen v. Morgan (1825) 6 D
 Derry v Peek (1889) LR 14 App Cas 337
 Doneghue v. Stevenson (1932) ALL ER Rep. 1(Negligence)/(1932) AC562
 Fowler v. Lanning (1959) 1 QB 426 (Tresspass to Person)
 Hayward v Thompson (1981) 3 ER 450
 Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. V Heller & Partners Ltd. (1964) AC 465
 Hicks v. Faulkner (1878) 8 QBD 167
 Krushnakumar V State of Tamilnadu AIR 2015 SC 2836(Medical negligence)
 Pannalal v. Shrikrishna (1955) ILR MB 89
 Pocock v Moore (1825) R 321
 Queen v Holbrook (1874) 4 QBD 42
 Raj Gopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1957) 277
 State of Punjab v Ajaib Singh AIR 1953 SC 10
 State of Haryana V. Smt. Santra AIR 2000 SC 217 (Medical Negligence)
 Stephens v Myers (1830) 4 C 349 (Assault)
8
  The Wagon Mound case (1961) AC 388 (Causation –Remoteness of damage)
 Tushar Kanti Ghosh V Bina Bhowmick (1952) 57 CWN 378
 Willans v. Taylor (1829)

B. Compulsory and suggested readings

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s the Law of Torts’, 27 th Ed. 2016, PP 247-263,325-
348, 371-387, 457-487 and 603-607
 Winfield Percy Henry, Jolowicz T.A. and T. Lewis Ellis, ‘ Winfield on
Torts’, 19th Ed. 2014, PP 149-305, 705-762, 763-798, 943-986.
 Salmond J. W., Heuston R.F.V. ‘Salmond on the Law of Torts’, 11 th Ed., PP
318-322, 322-336.

MODULE 4
DIGNATORY TORTS

(Class Hours- 06)

Module Overview:
Every person has a right to reputation and dignity. If injury or harm is caused by unlawful
manner to a person’s reputation it may result in an irreparable loss similar to physical injury.
So if by an illegal means an injury is caused to any person’s reputation or self-esteem it is
subject to remedy under law of tort. This module will introduce students to the various facets
of such wrongs, remedies and justification when such wrongs are exonerated by law.

Detailed Outline:
 Defamation –
 Libel & Slander –
 Defences, Justification by Truth, Fair and Bonafide Comments, Privilege,
Consent and Apology and Innuando
 Breach of Confidence
 Emerging Torts: Privacy
 Cyber Torts

Project components: As per list

Tutorial Components:

Reading List
A. Case Laws

 C.K. Daphtary vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1132 (Defamation-Privilege)

 Campbell vs. MGM Ltd. (2004) 2 AC 457 (Privacy)
 Dr.G.Gopalaswamy vs. N.Raghavulu Naidu, (2014) 6 CTC 762(Defamation)
 Hulton & Co. vs. Jones (1910) AC 20 (Defamation-Innuendo)
 Lewis vs. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (1964) AC 3234 (Defamation)
 Noor Mohd. V Mohd. Jiauddin AIR 1992 MP 2444/ 1991 (0) MPLJ
503(Constitutional Tort- Defamation)
9
  R. Rajagopal vs, State of Tamil Nadu (1994) SCC (6) 632(Privacy)
 Reynolds vs. Times Newspapers (2001) 2 AC 177(Defamation-Privilege)
 Talyor vs Serious Fraud Office (1999) 2 AC 177(Defamation-Privilege)
B. Compulsory and suggested readings
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s the Law of Torts’, 27th Ed. 2016, PP 267-32
 Ramaswamy Iyer’s,, Law of Torts, 10th Ed. 2007, PP 361-392,43-46, 658-663
 B C. Nirmal, Tort Law (Annual Survey of Indian Law, Indian Law Institute 2015) PP.
1108-1116
 Vishal K. Vora, Defamation on Social Networking Websites, 2010 Practical Lawyer
Nov 30
 J. Morgan, Privacy, Confidence and Horizontal Effect: "Hello" Trouble, 62
Cambridge L.J 444 (2003)

MODULE 5
ECONOMIC TORTS

(Class Hours- 06)

Module Overview:
This module discusses a group of civil wrongs that results in causing primarily pecuniary or
financial injury. The acts may be caused by unlawfully interfering with trade of business;
conversion of goods or property belonging to other; or making malicious or false statements
about goods. The discussion will focus around these categories of civil wrongs, there
ingredients remedies and justification and justification when such liabilities are exonerated.
Detailed Outline:
 Interference with Contract or Business
 Tort of conspiracy
 Tort of Intimidation
 Trespass to Goods
 Conversion
 Liability for Misstatement
 Slander of Goods
 Tort of Deceit
 Malicious falsehood
 Passing off

Project components: As per list

Tutorial Components:

Reading List
A. Case Laws
 Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow & Co., (1889) 23 QBD 598
(Justification/Conspiracy)
 D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd. v. Deakin, (1952) 2 All ER 361. (Intimidation)
 Rhotas Industries v. Rotas Industries Staff Union, (1976) 2 SCC 82
(Conspiracy)
 Dhian Singh Sobha Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 274 (Trespass to
Goods)

10
  OBG Ltd. v. Allan, (2007) 4 All ER 545 (H.L.) (Conversion)
 Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (Deceit)
 Heinz Italia v. Dabur India Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 1(Slander of goods)
 Ellora Industries v. Banarasi Das, (AIR 1980 Del 254) (Passing-off)

B. Compulsory and suggested readings

 Lee E. Beng, A Perspective on the Economic Torts, Sing. J. Legal Stud., (Dec
1996), at 482
 R. Bagshaw, Can the Economic Torts Be Unified? 18 Oxford J. Legal Stud.
729 (1998)
 Ramaswamy Iyer’s,, Law of Torts, 10 th Ed. 2007, PP 499-519, 229-265, 473-
497
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s the Law of Torts’, 27 th Ed. 2016, PP 627-639, 356-
369, 455-457, 435-437
 Salmond John Willian, Heuston R.F.V. ‘Salmond on the Law of Torts, 11 th
Ed., PP 318-322, 322-336.
 Winfield Percy Henry, Jolowicz T.A. and T. Lewis Ellis, ‘ Winfield on
Torts’, 19th Ed. 2014, PP 149-305, 705-762, 763-798, 943-986.

MODULE 6: MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: PROVISIONS RELATING TO

COMPENSATION

(Class Hours- 06)

Module Overview:

The common law liabilities of motor vehicles causing injury of death by rash and negligent
driving has been codified into the Motor Vehicles Act, 1935 and then subsequently replaced
by a new Act in 1988. This module discuss the scheme of liability laid down in the M.V. Act
1988, the compensatory mechanism and system of insurance as envisaged by the Act.

Detailed Outline:
 Compensatory Jurisprudence and Motor Vehicle Act
 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
 Liability and insurance
 Liabilities under MV Act
 Defences
 Insurance Policy
 Compulsory Insurance
 Insurer’s Liability
 Limits of Insurer’s Liability
 Liability of Insurance Company
 Compensation in the case of Hit and Run Motor Accidents
 Claims, Tribunals and Awards of Compensation
 Is there is need to change/update the Motor Vehicle Act for increased road-safety?

Project components: As per list

Tutorial Components:

11
Reading List
A. Case Laws
 Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. K. Hemlatha, AIR 2008 SC
2851 (Contributory Negligence)
 Deepal Girishbhai Soni v.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385
(No-Faulty Liability)
 Hardeo Kaur and others Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, (1992) 2
SCC 567 (Compensation)
 Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 (Compensation for
Disability)
 Pawan Kumar and Anr. etc. Vs. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal, (2014)3SCC590
(Personal injury-compensation)
 Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45 (No-Fault Liability)
 R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC
551(Damages)
 Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121(Who can
claim Compensation)

B. Compulsory and suggested readings

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s the Law of Torts’, 27th Ed. 2016, PP 669-683
 Ramaswamy Iyer’s,, Law of Torts, 10th Ed. 2007, PP 152-171.
 R.G. Chaturvedi, Law of Motor Accident Claims and Compensation (2 nd Ed.
2010) PP 1-15.
 D. Gupta, Awarding of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-
Guiding Principles, HIM NEWS, (Mar 2013) at 12

MODULE 7: CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

(Class Hours- 12)

Module Overview:

Everybody is a consumer. To increase the level of protection to consumer in the market and
fulfilling India’s commitment to secure consumer rights, the Parliament of India enacted the
Consumer Protection Act in 1986. The Consumer Protection Act in association with its allied
legislations has attempted to consolidate and strengthen the Indian legal framework of
consumer protection and securing consumer rights effectively. This module aims to discuss
this legislation in great details. It focuses on important concept and features introduced by the
law and the volume of jurisprudence that has developed by various consumer courts and
Supreme Courts over the last 30 years of its implementation.

Detailed Outline:
 Product Liability at Common Law :Concept of ‘Caveat Emptor’
 Globalization and consumerism: Towards “Caveat Vendor”
 Genesis of the consumer rights – United Nation Declaration on Consumer Rights
 Introduction of Consumer Protection Act: Objectives and its salient features
12
  Definitions: Consumer, Defect, Deficiency, Goods, Services, UTP & RTP
 Significance of Section 3of Consumer Protection Act
 Consumer Forums- Powers and Functions
 Procedure to be followed by the forum: Filing complaint, limitation, admission and
decision making
 Relief available to consumer
 Appeals, Revision and Review
 Some Case Studies on Service Sector
 Professional negligence

Project components: As per list

Tutorial Components:

Reading List
A. Case Laws

 India Photographic Co. vs. H.D. Shourie, AIR1999SC2453 (Object and

Purpose of the Act)
 State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Coop. Society, (2003) 2
SCC 412 (Consumer Rights)
 Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India, AIR1993SC1403
(Constitution of the Forums)
 Laxmi Engineering vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (Definition of consumer
-Commercial Purpose)
 Cheema Engineering Services vs. Rajan Singh, (1997) 1 SCC 131 (Definition
of consumer Exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood)
 Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225 (Definition
of Goods)
 Karnataka Power Transmission Corp. vs. Ashok Iron Works, (2009) 3 SCC
240 (Defective Goods)
 Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787
(Definition of Service)
 Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha, AIR1996SC550 (Distinction
between ‘Contract for’ and ‘Contract of’ Service)
 Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, AIR2010SC93
(Education Service- Partly Excluded)
 Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha, AIR1996SC550 (Deficiency of
Service)
 Union Bank of India vs. M/s. Seppo Rally OY and Another, (1999) 8 SCC
357(Deficiency of Service)
 Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, (2000) 1 SCC
66(Deficiency of Service)
 Om Prakash vs Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corp., (1994) 3
SCC 504 (Unfair Trade Practice)
 Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital vs. Bhupesh Khurana, (2009) 4
SCC 484 (Unfair Trade Practice-Misleading Advertisement)

13
  Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCC
529 (Restrictive Trade Practice)
 Trans Mediterranean Airways vs. Universal Exports, 2011 (10) SCALE 524
(Maintainability of Complaints- Section 3)
 Transport Corporation of India vs. Veljan Hydrair, (2007) 3 SCC 142
(Jurisdiction of Forum “Cause of Action”)
 Mr. France B. Martins vs. Mrs. Mafalda Maria Teresa Rodrigues, (1999) 6
SCC 627 (Limitation for filing consumer complaints)
 J.J. Merchant vs. Srinath Chaturvedi, AIR2002SC2931 (Procedure followed
by forums for Speedy Disposal of Complaints)
 Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital, (2000) 7 SCC 668 (Reliefs)
 Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia, AIR 1998 SC 1806
(Computation of Damages-Medical Negligence)
 Malay Kumar Ganguly vs Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR2010SC1162 (Medical
Negligence)
 State of Haryana v. Santra, AIR 2000 SC 1888 (Medical Negligence)
 Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, AIR 1996 SC 2111(Medical Negligence)
 Savita Gard v. Director, National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56 (Medical
Negligence)
 D.K. Gandhi vs. M. Mathias, III (2007) CPJ 337 (NC) (Professional
Negligence by Lawyers)

B. Compulsory and suggested readings

 Agarwal V.K., Consumer Protection(Law and Practice), Bharat Law House
Pvt.Ltd., 7th Edition 2016
 Ramaswamy Iyer’s,, Law of Torts, 10th Ed. 2007, PP 1005-103
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s the Law of Torts’, 27th Ed. 2016, PP 715-757.

Reference Books:
 Agarwal V.K., Consumer Protection(Law and Practice), Bharat Law House Pvt.Ltd.,
7th Edition 2016
 Baxi, Upendra and Amita Dhada, Valiant Victims and Lethal Litigation, the Bhopal
Case, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi9, 1990
 Best, Arthur, Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems, Aspen Law, New York,
2011.
 Chaturvedi, R. G., Law of Motor Accident Claims and Compensation, Second
Edition, Bharat Law Publication, New Delhi, 2010.
 Farnworth. Ward, Torts Cases and Questions, Second Edition, WoltersKluwers, New
York, 2009.
 Goldberg and Sebok, Tort Law: Responsibility and Redress, Wolters Kluwer, Second
Edition, New Your, 2008.
 Heuston, R.F.V., Salmond on the Law of Torts, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1969
 James, Philip S. and D.J.L. Brown, General Principles of the Law of Torts, Fourth
Edition, Butterworths, London, 1978.
 John Oberdiek, Philosophical Foundations of Law of Torts, Oxford Publications,
2014
 Kalra, G. S. Mehrotra’s Commentary on Law of Defamation, Damages and Malicious
Prosecution, Delhi Law House, Delhi, 2006.

14
 Kidner, Richard, Casebook on Torts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
 Kutner, Reynolds, Advanced Torts: Cases and Materials, Carolina Academic Press,
Wilmington, 1997.
 Lyyer’s, Ramaswami, Law of Torts, S. R. Desai (ed.), Deep and Deep Publications,
New Delhi, 2007.
 Murphy, J., Street on Torts, Eleventh Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworth, New Delhi,
2003.
 Pillai, P.S.A., Law of Torts, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2004.
 Pollock, Sir Frederick, The Law of Torts, Steven and Sons, London, 1979.
 Raj, Janak Raj, Motor Accident Claims Law and Procedure, Third Edition, Universal
Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2007.
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s, The Law of Torts, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, New Delhi,
2016
 Roderick Bagshaw and Nicholas McBride, Tort Law, Pearosn Longman, United
Kingdom Third Edition, 2008.
 Rogers, W.V.H. (ed.) Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Siteenth Edition, Sweet and
Maxwell, London, 2002
 Salmond John William, Heuston R.F.V., Salmond on the Law of Torts, Oxford
Publication, 1999
 Sreenath M.R. Law relating to Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, Eastern
Book Company, Lucknow, 1999.

*************

15