Section 85 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 85 deals with the person who provides a service in respect of a product, such as a repairer, installer or maintenance contractor. It gives four grounds on which that person is liable in a product liability action: faulty or deficient service, an act or omission or negligence or conscious withholding of information that caused harm, failure to issue adequate instructions or warnings, and service that did not conform to an express warranty or the contract. Our consumer notice drafting team can help you frame or answer a notice on these grounds.
A product service provider is liable in a product liability action if (a) the service was faulty, imperfect, deficient or inadequate in quality, nature or manner of performance required by law or by contract or otherwise; (b) there was an act of omission or commission or negligence or conscious withholding of information which caused harm; (c) it did not issue adequate instructions or warnings to prevent harm; or (d) the service did not conform to express warranty or the terms and conditions of the contract. Unlike section 84, the section has no sub-section on liability without fault.
Section 85 at a glance
| Clause | Ground | Key words |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | Faulty service | "faulty or imperfect or deficient or inadequate in quality, nature or manner of performance" required by law, contract or otherwise |
| (b) | Act or omission | "act of omission or commission or negligence or conscious withholding any information which caused harm" |
| (c) | No instructions or warnings | "did not issue adequate instructions or warnings to prevent any harm" |
| (d) | Breach of express warranty or contract | "did not conform to express warranty or the terms and conditions of the contract" |
The grounds are separated by "or", so each stands alone. Section 83 allows a complainant to sue a product service provider for harm caused by a defective product; see sections 82–83 on who can sue whom. For an overview of all six sections, see our post on product liability under CPA 2019, sections 82–87.
Who is a "product service provider"
Section 2(38) says a "product service provider", in relation to a product, means a person who provides any service in respect of such product. Section 82 uses the phrase "serviced by a product service provider". The definition is wide: it does not list repair, installation or maintenance, but any service "in respect of such product" falls within it. The section 2 definitions of "service" and "deficiency" are set out in our article on the definitions.
The four grounds
(a) Faulty or deficient service
"The service provided by him was faulty or imperfect or deficient or inadequate in quality, nature or manner of performance which is required to be provided by or under any law for the time being in force, or pursuant to any contract or otherwise."
The standard is what is required "by or under any law", "pursuant to any contract" or "otherwise". So the benchmark can be a legal requirement, the agreed terms, or some other source. The text does not say what "otherwise" covers. The four adjectives (faulty, imperfect, deficient, inadequate) overlap with the definition of deficiency in section 2(11).
(b) Act of omission or commission, negligence or conscious withholding of information
"There was an act of omission or commission or negligence or conscious withholding any information which caused harm."
This ground is about conduct: doing something wrong, failing to do something, being negligent, or consciously keeping back information. The conduct must have "caused harm", so a link between the conduct and the harm is part of the ground. Harm has the meaning in section 2(22), which excludes harm to the product itself and commercial or economic loss. The section does not say how the link is to be shown.
(c) No adequate instructions or warnings
"The service provider did not issue adequate instructions or warnings to prevent any harm." The parallel for manufacturers is section 84(1)(e). Here the duty falls on the service provider, for example to tell the owner how to use or care for a product after a service. The text does not say to whom the instructions or warnings must be given or in what form.
(d) Express warranty or contract terms
"The service did not conform to express warranty or the terms and conditions of the contract." Section 2(20) defines express warranty as a material statement, affirmation of fact, promise or description relating to a product or service warranting that it conforms to it. A written promise of a repair outcome, or a contract term on how the service will be done, can be tested against this ground.
What section 85 does not say
Section 84(2) tells a manufacturer that it is liable on an express warranty even if it proves it was not negligent or fraudulent. Section 85 has no matching sub-section. The text is silent on whether a service provider may rely on lack of negligence against ground (d). This article does not fill that gap.
| Question | Section 84 (manufacturer) | Section 85 (service provider) |
|---|---|---|
| Number of grounds | Five | Four |
| Liability on warranty without fault stated | Yes, 84(2) | Not stated |
| Link to harm in the ground itself | In the opening of Chapter VI | Clause (b) says "which caused harm" |
Example. Mr Reddy gives his generator to an authorised workshop for maintenance. The workshop refits a fuel line without tightening it and does not warn him to check it after a few hours. The generator leaks fuel and a fire damages the shed. Clause (a) may apply (the service was deficient in manner of performance), clause (b) may apply (omission or negligence that caused harm), and clause (c) may apply (no adequate instruction or warning). The fire damage to the shed is harm of the kind in section 2(22); the damage to the generator itself would not count as harm for this purpose.
Where the exceptions are
Section 87 lists the limits on product liability actions. Most of its sub-sections speak of the product seller or the product manufacturer; section 87 does not name the service provider. See section 87 on exceptions for the text.
What the text leaves out
- It does not say who proves the fault, or to what standard.
- It does not say how the compensation is measured; section 39 sets out the reliefs a Commission may order.
- It does not say whether a service provider and the manufacturer can be sued together, or how liability is divided between them.
Need help with a service provider's liability?
If a service on a product has caused you harm, or you provide such services and have received a notice, the key is to match the facts to the four grounds and keep the service records. Our team can draft or answer the notice. Start with consumer notice drafting and bring the job card, invoice, warranty and any messages exchanged.
Key takeaways
- A product service provider is anyone who provides a service in respect of a product (s.2(38)).
- Section 85 gives four alternative grounds: faulty service, act or omission or negligence or conscious withholding of information that caused harm, no adequate instructions or warnings, and non-conformity to express warranty or contract terms.
- The standard for service can come from law, contract or otherwise.
- There is no sub-section like 84(2) on liability without proof of negligence.
- The harm must be harm as defined in section 2(22).
Read next
- Section 84: liability of the product manufacturer
- Section 86: liability of the product seller
- Section 87: exceptions to product liability action
- Product Liability Under CPA 2019: Section 82–87
Disclaimer: Based on the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as enacted, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Monetary limits, fees and procedure are set or revised by rules and regulations made under the Act and should be checked in their current form. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.