Theoretical overview
Damages means the harm or loss suffered by someone else as a result of wrongful act. The plaintiff has to prove that there has been a legal damages caused to him if there is a violation of legal right the action has to be taken.
Legal damages are of two type: injuria sin damnum and damnum sin injuria
- Injuria Sine Damnum: – Injuria Sine Damnum is a legal maxim, which means that injury or loss or damage caused to the plaintiff without suffering any physical injury or damage. It is a Latin term where ‘Injuria’ means injury, ‘Sine’ means without and ‘Damno’ refers to a property or any physical loss, therefore the term refers to ‘injury suffered without actual loss’. Here, in this case, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove the damages so suffered, he only has to prove that there is some legal damage suffered by him, that is the action so brought is actionable per se.
- Damnum Sine Injuria: – Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim, which refers to injury which is being suffered by the plaintiff but there is no violation of any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where there is no violation of the legal right of but the injury, or damage is being suffered by the plaintiff, so the plaintiff can’t bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law, unless there is some infringement of a legal right is present. Damnum Sine Injuria, the literal meaning of the word refers to loss or damage in terms of money, property or any physical loss without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act so did was intentional and was done to cause injury to other but without infringing on the legal right of the person.
Important case law
Ashby vs. White (1703)
Facts of the Case: – In this case, the plaintiff was an eligible voter in the parliamentary elections held at that time. The Respondent, a Returning Officer, wrongly refused to take the vote of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not harmed because the candidate he wanted to vote for had already won the election but still, the defendant was held liable.
Judgement of the Case: in this case defendants act did not cause any damages.it was held that the defendant was liable.
Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K., the petitioner, an M.L.A. of J & K. Assembly, was wrongfully detained by the police while he was going to attend the Assembly session. He was not produced before the Magistrate within requisite period, As a consequence of this, the member was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the Assembly session. There was also violation of fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. By the time the petition was decided by the Supreme Court, Bhim Singh had been released, but by way of consequential relief, exemplary damages amounting to Rs. 50,000 were awarded to him.
Gloucester Grammar School Case
There the defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival school to that of the plaintiffs. Because of the competition, the plaintiffs had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that the plaintiffs had no remedy for the loss thus suffered by them.
In Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.: a number of steamship companies combined together and drove the plaintiff company out of the tea-carrying trade by offering reduced freight. The House of Lords held that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the defendants had by lawful means acted to protect and extend their trade and increase their profits.
In Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir,: the plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from exhibiting the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. It was contended that the film hurt the religious feelings of the plaintiff in so far as Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed. It was observed that hurt to religious feelings had not been recognised as a legal wrong. Moreover, no person has a legal right to enforce his religious views on another or to restrain another from doing a lawful act, merely because it did not fit in with the tenets of his particular religion. Since there was no violation of a legal right, request of injunction was rejected.
Points to remember
Injuria sine damnum means violation of legal right without causing any harm or damages to the plantiff.
Damnum sin injuria means damages without infringement of legal right of plaintiff since no legal right is infringed no action is taken in these case.
