Legal Awareness
Manjeet kumar sahu
(Querist) 24 October 2010
This query is : Resolved
Thanx for ur reply sir,
Even if prisoners have right to vote as said by one of the expert.Can the prisoner sue for DAMNUM SINE INJURIA.
Parthasarathi Loganathan
(Expert) 24 October 2010
DAMNUM SINE INJURIA literally means condemnation without injury. Simply translated, the term would mean “injury with no damages.” Damnum sine injuria refers to a legal situation in which plaintiff’s right is not respected by another but where the breach of plaintiff’s right does not cause damage, or at least not a calculable or admissible damage.
A finding of damnum sine injuria can be the basis for a finding of nominal damages. Thus in cases of damnum sine injuria the injury is too small to be remedied practically at the law. Hence non exercise of franchise has to be examined legally in the context that such cases the plaintiff will have a satisfaction remedy of nominal damages or symbolic damages. Experts can again throw some light under the provisions of IPC and Cr.PC
Deepak Shenoy
(Expert) 25 October 2010
Because when a person is sentensed imprisonment it means that few of his fundamental rigts given by Constitution is lawfully curtailed.
aman kumar
(Expert) 26 October 2010
AGREE WITH DEEPAK
Raja
(Expert) 10 November 2010
It is a very good question of TORT.
In general, a tort consists of some act done by a person who causes injury to another, for which damages are claimed by the latter against the former. In this connection we must have a clear notion with regard to the words damage and damages. The word damage is used in the ordinary sense of injury or loss or deprivation of some kind, whereas damages mean the compensation claimed by the injured party and awarded by the court. Damages are claimed and awarded by the court to the parties. The word injury is strictly limited to an actionable wrong, while damage means loss or harm occurring in fact, whether actionable as an injury or not.
The real significance of a legal damage is illustrated by two maxims, namely, Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damno.
(i) Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage Without Injury)
There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful and give no right of action to him who suffers from their effects. Damage so done and suffered is called Damnum Sine Injuria or damage without injury. Damage without breach of a legal right will not constitute a tort. They are instances of damage suffered from justifiable acts. An act or omission committed with lawful justification or excuse will not be a cause of action though it results in harm to another as a combination in furtherance of trade interest or lawful user of one’s own premises. In Gloucester Grammar School Master Case, it had been held that the plaintiff school master had no right to complain of the opening of a new school. The damage suffered was mere damnum absque injuria or damage without injury.
(ii) Injuria Sine Damno (Injury Without Damage)
This means an infringement of a legal private right without any actual loss or damage. In such a case the person whose right has been infringed has a good cause of action. It is not necessary for him to prove any special damage because every injury imports a damage when a man in hindered of his right. Every person has an absolute right to property, to the immunity of his person, and to his liberty, and an infringement of this right is actionable per se. actual perceptible damage is not, therefore, essential as the foundation of an action. It is sufficient to show the violation of a right in which case the law will presume damage. Thus in cases of assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, trespass on land, etc., the mere wrongful act is actionable without proof of special damage. The court is bound to award to the plaintiff at least nominal damages if no actual damage is proved. This principle was firmly established by the election case of Ashby v. White, in which the plaintiff was wrongfully prevented from exercising his vote by the defendants, returning officers in parliamentary election. The candidate fro whom the plaintiff wanted to give his vote had come out successful in the election. Still the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages against the defendants for maliciously preventing him from exercising his statutory right of voting in that election. The plaintiff was allowed damages by Lord Holt saying that there was the infringement of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.
