Section 86 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.
A shop or online seller does not automatically carry the manufacturer's liability, but section 86 lists five situations in which a product seller who is not a product manufacturer is liable in a product liability action. They include real involvement in design or packaging, altering the product, giving its own warranty, being the only reachable party when the manufacturer is unknown or out of reach, and carelessness in assembly or in passing on warnings. If you sell goods, our consumer notice drafting team can help you answer a notice that relies on this section.
A product seller who is not a product manufacturer is liable if (a) he exercised substantial control over designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labelling; (b) he altered or modified the product and that was the substantial factor in causing harm; (c) he made his own express warranty, independent of the manufacturer's, and the product failed it; (d) he sold the product and the manufacturer's identity is unknown, or notice cannot be served on the manufacturer, or the manufacturer is not subject to Indian law, or the order cannot be enforced against him; or (e) he failed to exercise reasonable care in assembling, inspecting or maintaining the product, or did not pass on the manufacturer's warnings, and that was the proximate cause of harm.
Section 86 at a glance
| Clause | Ground | What the seller did or is |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | Substantial control | Exercised substantial control over designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labelling of the product that caused harm |
| (b) | Alteration or modification | Altered or modified the product; that was the substantial factor in causing the harm |
| (c) | Own express warranty | Made an express warranty independent of the manufacturer's; the product failed it, and that caused the harm |
| (d) | Manufacturer out of reach | Sold the product; manufacturer's identity unknown, or service cannot be effected, or not subject to Indian law, or order cannot be enforced against him |
| (e) | Lack of reasonable care | Failed in assembling, inspecting or maintaining, or did not pass on warnings or instructions; that was the proximate cause of harm |
Section 83 lets a complainant bring an action against a product seller 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 seller"
Section 2(37) defines a product seller, in relation to a product, as a person who, in the course of business, imports, sells, distributes, leases, installs, prepares, packages, labels, markets, repairs, maintains, or otherwise is involved in placing the product for commercial purpose. It includes a manufacturer who is also a product seller and a service provider.
It does not include:
- a seller of immovable property, unless that person is engaged in the sale of a constructed house or in the construction of homes or flats;
- a provider of professional services where the sale or use of a product is only incidental and the essence is opinion, skill or services;
- a person who acts only in a financial capacity, is not a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer, direct seller or electronic service provider, or who leases a product without a reasonable opportunity to inspect and discover defects under a lease where selection, possession, maintenance and operation are controlled by another.
Section 86 applies only to a product seller "who is not a product manufacturer". A seller who is also a manufacturer is dealt with under section 84.
The five grounds
(a) Substantial control
"He has exercised substantial control over the designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labelling of a product that caused harm." This catches the seller who has a hand in the product, for example a retailer whose own-brand product is made to its design. The word "substantial" is not defined.
(b) Alteration or modification
"He has altered or modified the product and such alteration or modification was the substantial factor in causing the harm." Two conditions apply: the seller made the change, and the change was the substantial factor in the harm. Compare section 87(1), which says no action lies against the seller if, at the time of harm, the product was misused, altered or modified; read the two together, since the same word "altered" appears in both. See section 87 on exceptions.
(c) The seller's own express warranty
"He has made an express warranty of a product independent of any express warranty made by a manufacturer and such product failed to conform to the express warranty made by the product seller which caused the harm." So a promise the seller makes on its own, such as "this helmet will survive any crash", is tested against the product, and the manufacturer's warranty is not the issue.
(d) The manufacturer cannot be reached
"The product has been sold by him and the identity of product manufacturer of such product is not known, or if known, the service of notice or process or warrant cannot be effected on him or he is not subject to the law which is in force in India or the order, if any, passed or to be passed cannot be enforced against him."
This one is the most practical. It breaks into four situations:
| Situation | Text |
|---|---|
| Manufacturer unknown | Identity not known |
| Manufacturer known but not reachable | Service of notice, process or warrant cannot be effected |
| Outside Indian law | Not subject to the law in force in India |
| Order unenforceable | Order, if any, passed or to be passed cannot be enforced against him |
In each case the seller who sold the product becomes liable. It does not need to have done anything wrong; its position as the seller in the chain, with the manufacturer out of reach, is enough. The section does not say what the seller can claim back from the manufacturer later.
(e) Lack of reasonable care, and warnings not passed on
"He failed to exercise reasonable care in assembling, inspecting or maintaining such product or he did not pass on the warnings or instructions of the product manufacturer regarding the dangers involved or proper usage of the product while selling such product and such failure was the proximate cause of the harm."
Two limbs: care in assembling, inspecting or maintaining, and passing on the manufacturer's warnings or instructions at the time of sale. In both, the failure must be "the proximate cause of the harm". The text does not define "reasonable care" or "proximate cause".
Example. Gupta Cycles sells an assembled cycle under a manufacturer's brand. A wheel nut was left loose when Gupta Cycles assembled it, and the buyer, Meera, is injured when the wheel comes off. Clause (e) may apply if the failure to take reasonable care in assembling was the proximate cause. If, instead, Gupta Cycles imported the cycle and the overseas maker cannot be served, clause (d) may apply.
What the text leaves out
- It does not say whether the grounds are cumulative. They are joined by "or", so each stands alone.
- It does not say how liability is shared between seller and manufacturer, or whether the seller can recover from the manufacturer.
- It does not explain how an online platform that is an electronic service provider is treated; the section 2(37) definition mentions the electronic service provider only in the exclusions for a person acting in a financial capacity.
- Harm has the meaning in section 2(22).
Need help as a seller or as a buyer?
For a seller, the question is which ground is being used against you. For a buyer, it is which ground fits the facts. Our team can read the facts, the product papers and the sale record and draft or answer the notice. Begin with consumer notice drafting and bring the invoice, packaging and any warranty text you have.
Key takeaways
- Section 86 applies to a product seller who is not a product manufacturer.
- Five alternative grounds: substantial control, alteration or modification, own express warranty, manufacturer unknown or out of reach, and lack of reasonable care or failure to pass on warnings.
- Ground (d) makes the seller answerable when the manufacturer cannot be identified, served, held to Indian law or made to comply.
- Ground (b) should be read with the exception in section 87(1).
- Harm is as defined in section 2(22).
Read next
- Section 85: liability of the product service provider
- Section 87: exceptions to product liability action
- Section 84: liability of the product manufacturer
- 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.