There is a huge difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum. The both maxims are totally apposite to each other. One is actionable and other is not. See the whole difference between the to - click here
Each individual has a right to protect his life, personal liberty, property and freedom. When any person's legal right infringed, they have a cause of action, even there is no actual harm or damage is caused. The law of torts protects these legal rights and help to compensate the plaintiff.
Here, the defendant did an act by causing this plaintiff's right violated. Even no damage is caused to the party who has suffered. The person who committing such violation will be held liable for infringement of rights.
Definition:-
Injuria Sine Damno also known as Injuria sine Damnum which means an infringement or violation of a legal right without any actual loss. It manifest a situation where defendant do an act by causing it plaintiff's legal rights are infringed even there is no loss has been suffered.
It recognizes some legal rights violations that can be considered as wrongful acts, regardless of whether they cause direct harm or not. In such cases, plaintiff still have a cause of action and seek legal remedies to protect their rights.
Injuria - means legal injury or infringement of legal right
Sine - means without
Damnum - means damage or loss in terms of money
Injuria Sine Damnum = Infringement of Legal Rights without Damage
Hence, the maxim talks about the legal injury of plaintiff without any actual damage to the physical injury or in terms of money. It is a situation where plaintiff can claim for damages because anyone has not right to violate other person legal rights. You can easily go to the court for compensation unlike Damnum sine Injuria.
Also read:- What is Damnum sine Injuria
Landmark Cases on Injuria Sine Damnum:-
Ashby v. White (1703)
This is a very landmark case under this maxim where the plaintiff, who was a qualified voter. Who was wrongfully detained by authority and denied to caste his vote in the parliamentary elections.
However, he did not get any direct loss thereafter his preferred candidate had already won. Even than the defendants were still held liable for violation of right to vote.
In this case, the principle of harm extends beyond mere financial loss and adding the violation of rights will be entitled to legal remedies.
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. Bhim Singh, which was a MLA of Jammu and Kashmir was unlawfully detained by the police authority. This arrest done to preventing him from attending the legislative assembly sessions and to stop him from caste their vote. However, his preferred candidate won, even then his right to vote was violated.
He was arrested and not follow the rules properly by authority like present before the court within 24 hours. The case revolves around the violation of personal liberty, as he being kept in a secret location.
Even with obtaining custody of the arrested person, the police was failed to produce him before the judge within the required time. This considered a gross negligence and violation of Article 21 and Article 22 of the Indian Constitution.
The court stated that the arrest was made with malafide intention, and bhim singh was awarded of Rs. 50,000 as damages. In the case of Injuria Sine Damnum, the court has a duty to award appropriate financial compensation.
Also read:- What Is a Power of Attorney
Ravi Yashvant Bhoir v. District Collector
This case also known as Raigad case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided worthful insights into the concept of legal rights and the also provided the requirements for a valid claim. A legal right is an individual right which has been protected by the state. If anyone violated those rights they will be held liable for punishment according to law.
There are some essentials are given below to challenge an act or omission:-
1. One must suffer a legal injury rather than actual loss.
2. The right must be present to the plaintiff.
3. Act or omission should be done by the defendant.
However, not all harm is comes under the category of wrongful act. According to law if the act does not affect a legal right, will not considered in Injuria sine Damno. These harm without a legal injury covers by "damnum sine injuria".
Sain Das v. Ujagar Singh (1940)
It was said that the principle of Injuria sine Damno will also applies to trespass cases. Where nominal compensation are generally awarded. A person when do an act of unjustifiable intrusion on other person's property. Then this principle will apply.
Although, it was also said that this principle will not be extended to every property cases, the specific circumstances should there to apply this maxim.
Legal Remedy Even Without Actual Loss
The law gives compensation even there is no harm. It is a situations where there is threat of infringement of a legal right. The person whose right has been violated can start legal proceedings against that person who infringed the right under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Redress the conflict between plaintiff and defendant by damages and an injunction to protect the rights.
Conclusion:
The damages are received by the plaintiff is because he suffered the loss and the amounts for compensation are determined according to the loss suffered. It helps to compensate the victim. The court has a duty to gives the unliquidated damages to the plaintiff. It helps plaintiff to recover the loss and bring back to the initial position.
We can also relate "Ubi jus ibi remedium" maxim with "Injuria sin Damnum" because this also talks about the rights. Ubi jus ibi remedium means "Where there is law, there is remedy".
0 Comments