2. INTRODUCTION
The word ‘Tort’ is derived from the Latin term tortum which means to twist.
The word ‘Tort’ implies a conduct which not lawful or straight but twisted, crooked or
unlawful.
It means a legal wrong or an unlawful act.
Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust.
The plaintiff could file case against the person who caused him loss so that he can claim
compensation
from him.
3. The plaintiff who claims compensation from the defendant for a tort should establish three
essential conditions:
a) There must be a wrongful act or omission on the part of the defendant.
b) The wrongful act or omission should have caused legal damage (violation of legal right)
to the plaintiff.
c) There should be legal remedy in the form of an action for damages.
It is to be proved that the defendant has done some act which he was not supposed to do, or he
has omitted to do something which he was supposed to do.
The defendant should have violated the duty fixed by law.
4. LEGAL DAMAGE ( violation of legal right to the plaintiff)
There are many remedies which are available to the injured person and the most common remedy is the
award of damages.
In a claim for damages, the person should have suffered a legal injury because in case no legal injury
happens a person cannot claim damages even if he suffered an actual loss.
It can be understood with the help of these maxims:
INJURIA SINE DAMNO (injury without damage)
Injuria means infringement of right conferred by law on the plaintiff and Damnum means loss or damage.
Tortious liability arises only when there is a breach of duty owed to the plaintiff, i.e, when there is a
violation of right to the plaintiff.
If there is a violation of legal right, the defendant is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff
even though the plaintiff has not suffered any loss. This principle is expressed in the maxim
“Injuria sine damnum”.
Injuria sine damno means violation of a legal right without causing any harm, loss or damage
to the plaintiff.
5. Ashby v. White [1703 2 Lord Raym 938]
The plaintiff was a qualified voter at a parliamentary election. He was not allowed to cast his vote by
the defendant. No loss was suffered by such refusal because the candidate for whom the plaintiff wanted
to vote won in spite of the wrongful act of the defendant. The court applied the maxim injuria sine damno
And held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages.
Bhim singh v. State of J&K
The petitioner, a member of legislative assembly of state of J&K, was wrongfully detained by the police
while he was going to attend the assembly session. He was not produced before the magistrate within 24
Hours. As a consequence of this, the member was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the assembly
And his fundamental right to be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours. The supreme court
awarded to him Rs.50000/- by way of consequential relief.
6. DAMNUM SINE INJURIA( damage or loss without violation of right)
Where there is no violation of a legal right, no action can lie in a court of law even though the defendant’s
act has caused some loss or harm or damage to the plaintiff. This principle is expressed by the maxim
“Damnum sine injuria”.
It means that a damage without the violation of legal right is not actionable in a court of law.
Under law of torts, defendant is not liable if there is no violation of right to the plaintiff even though his
Act has resulted in damage/loss to the plaintiff.
Gloucester Grammar school case
The defendant was a school teacher who used to work in plaintif’s school. Due to some conflict, the
defendant had left the school. Later he set up a rival school next to that of plaintiff. Majority of students
left the plaintiff’s school and joined the new school. This resulted in loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
Claimed compensation from the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff had no cause of action against
the defendant because only a case of damnum sine injuria.
7. Mogul steamship co. V. Gregor gow and co.
The plaintiff and defendants were owners of ships and engaged in the business of carrying tea. In order to
Drive the plaintiff out of this field the defendants associated together and reduced the freightage. The
plaintiff was also forced to reduce the freight to compete with the defendants. This resulted in heavy loss
to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit to claim compensation from the defendants. The court held that there
was no violation of right to the plaintiff and hence the defendants were not liable to compensate the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
The main aim of the maxim damnum sine injuria is that no ground of action or no cause of action lies for a
person who is acting within reasonable limits even though the other person is suffering losses on that
account while the main aim of the maxim injuria sine damnum is that if the legal right of a person is
violated then a cause of action arises and the person whose legal right is infringed is entitled to
Compensation.
