BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE COURT

IN THE MATTER OF DONOGHUE VS. STEVENSON
Plaintiff - Ms. May Donoghue
Defendant (Respondent)- David Stevenson Ltd. (bottling company)-
Manufacturer and supplier of ginger beer.

RESEARCHER: ARYAN LOMSH (06)

STATEMENT OF FACTS
- On August 26th, 1928, the Appellant drank a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by the Respondent,
which a friend had bought from a retailer and given to her.
- The bottle contained the decomposed remains of a snail which were not and could not be detected
until the greater part of the contents of the bottle had been consumed.
- As a result, she alleged and, at this stage her allegations must be accepted as true, that she suffered
from shock and severe gastro enteritis.
- She accordingly instituted proceedings against the manufacturers which have given rise to this
appeal.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2019

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
 According to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Clause 7 Section 1consumer is defined as any
person who purchases goods or avails services in exchange for consideration.
 The plaintiff had not bought the product, but she availed herself of the services of the product which
makes her a consumer according to the act.

Defective Products and Services:

 Section 2(1)(f) of the Act provides that, “defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the
quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law
of the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any
manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. The defendant is liable for defective product as the snail
present in the beverage was and imperfection and shortcoming in the quality that needed to be
maintained.

Duty of care:
 Under Consumer Protection Act 2019, it is explicitly stated that it includes the principle of duty of
care.
  It includes that a 'service provider' includes any person who provides service for consideration and
that such service providers owe a duty of care to consumers to avoid causing harm or injury while
providing services.
 In this case the defendant owed a duty of care to the consumers to avoid causing harm or injury
while providing services, which was breached when the plaintiff found a snail in the drink which
caused her gastroenteritis and mental shock. The beverage was tightly sealed and was only opened by
the plaintiff, hence there is no possibility that the beverage had been in any way tampered with.

Liability for harm:

 The Consumer Protection Act 2019 places liabilities on service providers, billers' manufacturers and
sellers for harm costs to consumers due to defect or negligence.
 Section 18 of the act explicitly states that a consumer can file a complaint seeking compensation for
any harm caused using a defective product or service which also alliance with the facts of the case
wherein the planter has the right to compensation because she suffered severe gastroenteritis and
shock which was caused by the consumption of the product.

Consumers Right To Safety:

 Section (6) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, It is right to be protected against the marketing of
goods and services which are hazardous to life and property.
 Unsafe goods may cause death or serious injury to the user due to defective ingredients, defective
design, poor workmanship, or any other reason. At times safety hazards are found due to the absence
of proper instructions on how to use the product.
 Thus, it is to be ensured that—
- Manufacturers and traders ensure that the goods are safe for the users, in case of hazardous goods,
they give clear instructions as to mode of use, consumer is informed of the risk involved in improper
use of goods, vital safety information is conveyed to consumers.
- Manufacturers or distributors who become aware of the unforeseen hazards after the goods are
supplied must inform the authorities and the public in order to forewarn consumers about such
hazards.
- Where a product is found such as is likely to be hazardous even when properly used, traders should
either recall it and modify the same, or replace it with a new product, or adequately compensate for
it. The decomposed snail caused hazard to the body of the plaintiff causing gastroenteritis.

Deficiency in service:
 Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, encompasses deficiency of service.
 It includes situations where the service provider fails to exercise due care and skill or where
the service provided is not of the quality a consumer is excited to expect.
 In this case the defendant failed to provide quality service to the plaintiff and did not exercise
due care towards her.

Section 84 of the Act of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 enumerates the situations where a
product manufacturer shall be liable in a claim for compensation under a product liability action for a harm
caused by a defective product manufactured by the product manufacturer which includes defect.

Section 2(34) defines product liability as the responsibility of a product manufacturer, service provider or
seller of goods or services to compensate a consumer for any harm or injury caused by a defective product or
deficient service.

Liability of product manufacturer.

 (1) A product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if (a) the product
contains a manufacturing defect
(2) Punishment for manufacturing for sale or storing, selling or distributing or importing
products containing adulterant.
(3) (a) Whoever, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or
stores or sells or distributes or imports any product containing an adulterant shall be
punished, if such act-
(b) causing injury not amounting to grievous hurt to the consumer, with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees;
injury" means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body mind or property.

PRAYER
To award my client, Mrs. Stevenson, compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs, that includes damages claimed under the Consumer
Protection Act and financial and emotional loss caused to my client due to the negligence on the part of Mr.
Stevenson.