Damages
sridhar pasumarthy
(Querist) 02 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
Respected Experts,
X is the owner of a building consisting of 5 portions. X let out the same to different tenants for residential purpose.
Y, the brother of X, used to cause inconvenience to the tenants by locking the main enterance of the building etc. and thereby the tenants vacated the premises due to which, X was deprived of monthly rents.
X filed a suit for mandatory injunction and got the lock (inconvenience) removed through process of law.
X also filed another suit against Y claiming damages for 3 years for loss of rents resulted due to unlawful acts of Y.
In fact, X again leased out the said portions to new tenants and is deriving rents. But, Y has no material to prove the same.
My questions are :-
a. whether X is entitled for such type of damages for the single unlawful act committed by Y?
b. If so, how long can he claim damages like this?
c. Is Y liable to compensate X continuously till he proves that X leased out the said portions to new tenants?
d. Is there any way for Y to escape from liability?
pls provide relevant legal propositions and citations, if any.
So many thanks for reply, in advance.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 02 December 2011
a. YES
b. MAX 3 YRS
c. no
d. bless god only civil liability, Y can be prosecuted for his criminal act.
r u for Y?
bal q time consuming, need to engage xtra staff to search citations. for want of time & expenses, unable to provide u, or else u ur self can do it.
Advocate Rajkumarlaxman
(Expert) 02 December 2011
when the lock was removed the dispute ended up till then only he can claim for damages.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 02 December 2011
Entire onus lies upon X to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt which is near to impossible to prove for him.
It shall also arise a question whether X had taken any criminal action against Y and whether tenants vacated only due to alleged illegal locking, whether X tried to remove lock at his own as and when this fact was brought to his knowledge by his tenants, when X again leased out his premises etc. etc.
Only and only X has to prove and Y has to disapprove so this is not the right stage to comment anything. Let X prove his case first.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 02 December 2011
Remoteness of damage relates to the requirement that the damage must be of a foreseeable type. In this type of claim, once the claimant has established that the defendant owes them a duty of care and is in breach of that duty which has caused damage, they must also demonstrate that the damage was not too remote.
Remoteness of damage is often viewed as an additional mechanism of controlling tortious liability.
Not every loss will be recoverable in tort law. Originally a defendant was liable for all losses which were a direct consequence of the defendant's breach of duty.
we have very little case law for guidance in India but case The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 is a leading one on the point.
Following the Wagon Mound no 1 the test for remoteness of damage is that damage must be of a kind which was foreseeable. Once damage is of a kind that is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage no matter whether the extent of the damage is foreseeable.
Wagon Mound test was considered and applied in:
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518
There has been some confusion as to whether for remoteness of damage, in addition to being damage of a type which is foreseeable, the damage must occur in a foreseeable manner.
The occupation of other tenants in plaintiff premises can be got verified by court's issuing commission and also adducing oral evidence of independent witnesses.
BUT It is a case of tort{remoteness of damages}
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 03 December 2011
I endorse the views of prabhakar singh g.
sridhar pasumarthy
(Querist) 03 December 2011
Prabhakar Singh ji,
Is it not necessary for X to prove the intention of Y in committing the tort is to vacate the tenants?
KANDE VENKATESH GUPTA
(Expert) 03 December 2011
Mr.Sridhar, intention of the tort feasor is not necessary in awarding damages. The question that would fall for consideration is, "Whether the tort committed by the tort feasor resulted directly in sustaining loss by the claimant?".
