Section 87 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.
Sections 84 to 86 say when a manufacturer, service provider or seller is liable. Section 87 says when they are not. It has three sub-sections: no action against the product seller where the product was misused, altered or modified at the time of harm; four situations in which a manufacturer is not liable for failure to warn or instruct; and no liability for failing to warn of a danger that is obvious or commonly known. If you are defending a product liability claim, our legal dispute resolution team can match your facts to these exceptions.
87(1): an action cannot be brought against the product seller if, at the time of harm, the product was misused, altered or modified. 87(2): in an action based on failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, the manufacturer is not liable if (a) a workplace purchase where warnings were given to the employer, (b) a component or material where the purchaser was warned, (c) a product legally meant for use only by or under an expert where reasonable means were used to warn the expert, or (d) the complainant was under the influence of alcohol or an unprescribed prescription drug. 87(3): no liability for failing to warn of a danger that is obvious or commonly known.
Section 87 at a glance
| Provision | Who is protected | Exception |
|---|---|---|
| 87(1) | Product seller | Product misused, altered or modified at the time of harm |
| 87(2)(a) | Manufacturer | Product bought by an employer for the workplace; warnings given to the employer |
| 87(2)(b) | Manufacturer | Component or material sold for use in another product; warnings given to the purchaser |
| 87(2)(c) | Manufacturer | Product legally meant for use or dispensing only by or under an expert; reasonable means used to warn the expert |
| 87(2)(d) | Manufacturer | Complainant under the influence of alcohol or a prescription drug not prescribed by a medical practitioner |
| 87(3) | Manufacturer | Danger obvious or commonly known, or one the user ought to have known |
For the liability grounds these exceptions answer, see section 84 on the manufacturer and section 86 on the seller. For an overview of all six sections, see our post on product liability under CPA 2019, sections 82–87.
Section 87(1): misused, altered or modified
"A product liability action cannot be brought against the product seller if, at the time of harm, the product was misused, altered, or modified."
- Only the seller is named. The sub-section does not mention the manufacturer or the service provider. The text is silent on whether the same exception helps them.
- "At the time of harm." The condition is judged at the time harm occurred.
- Three alternatives. Misused, altered or modified; any one is enough. The Act does not define "misused".
- Reading with section 86(b). Section 86(b) makes a seller liable where it altered or modified the product and that was the substantial factor in causing the harm. Section 87(1) speaks of alteration or modification by anyone, in general terms. The two do not sit easily together, since 87(1) does not say who made the change; this article notes the overlap and does not resolve it.
Example. A seller supplies a ladder. The buyer cuts down one rung and uses the ladder as a shelf support; it collapses and hurts him. Under 87(1) the seller is not liable if, at the time of harm, the product had been altered or modified or misused.
Section 87(2): four exceptions for the manufacturer's failure to warn
"In any product liability action based on the failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, the product manufacturer shall not be liable, if—"
This sub-section applies only to an action "based on the failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions", which is ground (e) of section 84(1). It does not give the manufacturer a defence to the other four grounds.
(a) Workplace purchase
"The product was purchased by an employer for use at the workplace and the product manufacturer had provided warnings or instructions to such employer." The employer, not the worker, is the person the manufacturer must warn.
(b) Component or material
"The product was sold as a component or material to be used in another product and necessary warnings or instructions were given by the product manufacturer to the purchaser of such component or material, but the harm was caused to the complainant by use of the end product in which such component or material was used." The warning goes to the purchaser of the component, such as the maker of the end product.
(c) Expert-only products
"The product was one which was legally meant to be used or dispensed only by or under the supervision of an expert or a class of experts and the product manufacturer had employed reasonable means to give the warnings or instructions for usage of such product to such expert or class of experts." The manufacturer must have used "reasonable means" to reach the expert.
(d) Alcohol or unprescribed prescription drug
"The complainant, while using such product, was under the influence of alcohol or any prescription drug which had not been prescribed by a medical practitioner." The text makes no distinction between kinds of product or degrees of influence.
| Clause | Whom the manufacturer warned | Key condition |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | The employer | Product bought by an employer for the workplace |
| (b) | The purchaser of the component or material | Harm caused by the end product |
| (c) | The expert or class of experts | Reasonable means used |
| (d) | Not applicable | Complainant under the influence while using the product |
Section 87(3): obvious or commonly known dangers
"A product manufacturer shall not be liable for failure to instruct or warn about a danger which is obvious or commonly known to the user or consumer of such product or which, such user or consumer, ought to have known, taking into account the characteristics of such product."
Three alternatives are listed: the danger is obvious, or commonly known, or one the user or consumer "ought to have known". The last phrase brings in an objective element and the characteristics of the product. The Act does not give examples, and a reader should not assume which dangers are obvious; the question is one of fact for the Commission.
How the exceptions fit together
| Exception | Applies to which action | Who may use it |
|---|---|---|
| 87(1) | Any product liability action against the seller | Product seller |
| 87(2) | Action based on failure to warn or instruct | Product manufacturer |
| 87(3) | Failure to instruct or warn | Product manufacturer |
The product service provider (section 85) is not named in section 87. Whether any of these exceptions are available to it is not stated.
What the text leaves out
- Who must prove an exception: the text does not say.
- Whether an exception applies partly, for example where a product was misused but also had a design defect.
- Whether the exceptions in 87(2) and (3) apply to the other grounds of section 84(1); on the wording they are tied to failure to warn or instruct.
Need help defending or pressing a product claim?
The exceptions can decide a case, so each fact, such as who bought the product, who was warned and how the product was used, needs evidence. Our team can review the claim or the defence with you. Start with a legal dispute resolution consultation and bring the product, its packaging, instructions and any records of warnings given.
Key takeaways
- 87(1): no action against the product seller if the product was misused, altered or modified at the time of harm.
- 87(2): four situations in which a manufacturer is not liable for failure to warn or instruct.
- 87(3): no duty to warn of dangers that are obvious or commonly known to the user, or that the user ought to have known.
- The exceptions are tied to specific kinds of action; they are not a general defence.
- Section 87 does not mention the product service provider.
Read next
- Section 84: liability of the product manufacturer
- Section 86: liability of the product seller
- Sections 88–89: non-compliance with CCPA directions and misleading advertisement offence
- 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.