The term ‘Tort’ is derived from a Medieval Latin word ‘Tortum’ which means twisted or crooked and implies conduct that is twisted or tortious. Legally a Tort is a wrong, independent of a contract which gives rise to a civil remedy for which compensation is recoverable. In general terms, it is expected that out of everyone to behave in a straightforward manner and when one deviates from this straight path into crooked ways, he/she has said to have committed a tort.
Law of Torts is a collection of all the circumstances in which the court gives a remedy by way of granting damages, for legal injury or harm that is unjustified, done by another person. For an act to be considered a Tort, there will be three elements that are needed to be taken into consideration:
1. There must be an act or an omission on the part of the defendant.
2. That particular act or omission should lead to the violation of a legal right vested with the plaintiff.
3. The particular wrongful act or omission thus done by the defendant is of such a nature to give rise to a legal remedy.
Damage is the phrase used to describe the harm or injury that occurs when something is broken or spoilt. The term “damage” in legal terms refers to the compensation sought by the injured party and awarded by the court. Actual damage differs from legal damage. Every unauthorized interference with the plaintiff’s property or invasion of his right causes legal harm.
In law, the term “injury” refers to a legally actionable violation, whereas “damage” refers to any loss or harm that occurs in a fact, whether or not it is actionable as an injury.
Two maxims, Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damno indicate the true severity of legal damage.
Both maxims are broken into parts as follows:
1. Damnum/Damno refers to significant harm, loss, or damage in terms of money, health, or other assets.
2. An infringement of a legal right granted to the plaintiff is referred to as injuria.
Sine is Latin for “without.”
These two maxims fall under the category of qualified rights, and there is no assumption of damages in the case of qualified rights, therefore a breach of such rights can only be pursued if damages can be proven.
INJURIA SINE DAMNO
Injuria means ‘Injury’, Sine refers to ‘without’ and Damnum stands for ‘Damage’, together Injuria Sine Damnum stands for ‘Injury without Damage’. Injuria sine damno is a breach of a legal right that does not cause the plaintiff any pain, loss, or damage, and whenever a legal right is violated, the person who owns the right has the right to sue. Every person has an absolute right to his or her property, personal immunity, and liberty, and any infringement of this right is actionable in and of itself.
A person who has had a legal right infringed on has a cause of action, and even deliberately infringing on a legal right gives rise to a cause of action. The legislation also allows a person who is threatened with infringement of a legal right to file a complaint under the terms of the Specific Relief Act under Declaration and Injunction, even though the injury has not yet occurred.
Injuria Sine Damno, therefore, means an infringement of a legal private right even if there is no actual loss or damage.
Example- If X wanders aimlessly around Y’s house, he is infringing on Y’s legal rights, and hence this maxim applies. In the situation of Injuria Sine Damnum, the loss is not bodily, but rather the result of a legal right being violated.
DAMNUM SINE INJURIA
Damnum sine injuria refers to a real and serious loss that occurs without the infringement of any legal right. A loss of money or the value of money does not constitute legal injury and is not a good basis for action. Without the ability to seek legal remedy, a man can commit the most heinous injury on another. Many activities, while detrimental, are not illegal and do not give rise to legal action.
In other terms, Damnum sine Injuria is a legal maxim that refers to damages without injury or damages where the plaintiff’s legal rights have not been infringed upon. In the instance of damnum sine injuria, no action is available because no legal right has been violated. This maxim is founded on the fundamental premise that using one’s common or ordinary rights within reasonable bounds and without infringing on another’s legal rights does not give rise to a tort action in favor of that other person.
Difference Between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damno
DAMNUM SINE INJURIA and INJURIA SINE DAMNO
1. Damnum sine Injuria refers to the plaintiff’s damages, but there is no harm done to the plaintiff’s legal rights because they have not been violated on the other hand The legal injury caused to the plaintiff without any physical harm is known as injuria sine damnum.
2. It is the loss incurred without any breach of a legal right, resulting in the absence of a cause of action. 2. It is an infringement of a legal right that establishes an actionable cause of action even though the plaintiff has suffered no damage.
3. The court does not award any compensation in the form of damages. 3. The court determines compensation in the form of damages.
4. This maxim applies to moral wrongdoings that have no legal consequences. 4. This maxim applies to legal wrongs that can be pursued if a person’s legal rights have been violated.
5. The idea of this maxim is that a person may exercise in a way that is within reasonable bounds and does not give rise to a tort claim just because it causes harm to others. 5. The concept behind this maxim is that if a legal right is infringed upon, a cause of action arises, and the individual whose right is infringed upon is entitled to file a lawsuit.
6. In this case, the plaintiff suffers a financial loss but no legal harm. 6. In this case, the plaintiff suffers legal injury regardless of whether or not they have incurred any financial loss as a result of it.
7. Damages that do not result in injury are not recoverable. 7. This is actionable since a legal right has been violated.
INJURIA SINE DAMNO:
BHIM SINGH V STATE OF J&K
In the case of Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Mr. Bhim Singh, an MLA from Jammu & Kashmir, was arrested and remanded in police custody and was obstructively prohibited from attending legislative assembly sessions. There was also going to be a voting session, which he was not permitted to attend. During the assembly session, where his vote was crucial. Even though the candidate for whom he wanted to vote won, his right to vote was violated. He was arrested and held in a secret location for four days before being brought before a judge. The issue revolves around a violation of personal liberty in which the police, although securing remand, fail to produce the arrested person before the court within the required time frame. There was a flagrant breach of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
It was determined that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 since a member of the legislative assembly was arrested while on his way to the legislative assembly, denying him the ability to attend the upcoming assembly session. The court has the authority to pay in Injuria Sine Damnum situations by granting appropriate monetary compensation. It was determined that the member of the legislative assembly was arrested while on his way to the seat of assembly, and as a result, he was denied his constitutional right to attend the assembly session and has responsibility for the detention, and so is entitled to just compensation.
SAIN DAS V UJAGAR SING (1940)
In the case of Sain Das vs. Ujagar Singh (1940), it was noted that nominal damages are frequently paid in trespass cases, and the principle of injuria sine damno is applied to an immovable property when there has been an unreasonable encroachment on the property in the hands of another. It was also determined that the rule could not be applied to every case of property attachment, regardless of the circumstances.
DAMNUM SINE INJURIA:
GLUCOSTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL (1410)
In, Gloucester Grammar School case a schoolmaster established a competitor school to the plaintiff’s, and the plaintiff had to decrease their rates from 40 pence to 12 pence each quarter as a result of the rivalry. As a result, the plaintiff sought reimbursement from the defendants for the losses he had experienced.
The plaintiff was found to have no remedy for the losses incurred because the act, while morally wrong, did not breach any of the plaintiff’s legal rights.
MOGUL STEAMSHIP CO. LTD VS. Mc Gregor
The plaintiff in Mogul steamship co. ltd vs. McGregor, was an independent shipowner who used to send his cargo port to receive cargo from China and deliver it to England. A group of four ship-owners, who were also defendants in the following case, gave a special discount to clients in order to expel their competitor, the plaintiff in this case.
In these circumstances, the plaintiff suffered a loss and filed a lawsuit against all four defendants seeking reimbursement for his losses. The damages were done to the plaintiff morally, but not legally, therefore there was no legal injury to the plaintiff, which follows the general principle of the maxim “damnum sine injuria,” which stipulates that no legal remedies are awarded for moral wrongs unless their legal rights are breached.
The conclusion of the two maxims is that one is a moral wrong for which the law provides no remedy despite the fact that it causes great loss or detriment to the plaintiff, while the other is a legal wrong for which the law provides a legal remedy despite the violation of a private right and no actual loss or detriment in that case. The maxim Damnum’s main goal the main goal of the maxim Injuria Sine damnum is that whenever a person’s legal right is violated, a cause of action arises, and the person whose legal right has been infringed is entitled to bring a suit against the person who did it. A qualified right, as opposed to absolute rights, has been violated in these circumstances.