INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

• Introduction
“Injuria” means injury, “Sine” means non-injury and “Damnum” means damages, so “injuria sin damnum” means injury without damage. In other words, it means a violation of your legal rights without causing any loss, loss or financial damage. In order for the defendant to be held liable, there must be an infringement of your legal rights. Otherwise, the defendant cannot be held liable just because the plaintiff suffered damages.

The principle of law states that if you do not cause any harm to another person’s rights, then no action will be taken against you. This maxim applies to all cases that are actionable, even if there is no evidence of loss or damage to the plaintiff.

•Difference

Sr. No	Injuria Sine Damnum	Damnum Sine Injuria
1	Injuria Sine damnum is the legal injury caused to the plaintiff without any damage to the physical injury.	Damnum sine Injuria refers to the damages suffered by the plaintiff but no damage is being caused to the legal rights as there is no violation of it
2	It is an infringement of a legal right where even if no loss has been suffered by the plaintiff still creates an actionable cause of action.	It is the losses suffered without the infringement of any legal right hence creating no cause of action.
3	Compensation in the form of damages is awarded by the court.	No compensation in the form of damages is awarded by the court.
4	This maxim is for the legal wrongs which are actionable if the person’s legal right has been violated.	This maxim is for the moral wrongs which have no action in the eyes of the law.
5	The principle of this maxim is that whenever there is an invasion of a legal right there creates a cause of action and the person whose right is vested is entitled to bring an action.	The principle of this maxim is that a person exercises in such a manner within reasonable limits which does not ground action in tort merely because it causes damages to other people
6	In this, the plaintiff suffers legal injury doesn’t matter they have suffered any loss on that account.	In this, the plaintiff suffers a loss but has suffered no legal injury.
7	This is actionable since there is a violation of a legal right.	Damages without injury are not actionable

• Interpretation
Injuria sin damno is an infringement of a right without causing injury to the plaintiff, and whenever a legal right is violated, the person in who’s right it is vested has the right to file an action. Every individual has the absolute right to his or her property, to his or her immunity, and to his or her liberty, and an infringement of that right is an actionable violation per se. The person against whom the right has been violated has the right to bring an action, even if the violation of that right was intentional. The law even allows the person to bring an action if there is a threat of infringement, even if the injury has not yet occurred, and he has the right to do so. Salmond’s view on torts-

This applies to the first category of the abovementioned cases. In these cases, it is not necessary to prove that the plaintiff suffered any harm as a result of an act. In a successful action, all that is required is that the plaintiff’s legal right has been infringed, that is, there is injuria.

If the plaintiff has not suffered any harm and the wrongful act can be actionable, then the question arises: how much compensation should the plaintiff receive? In most cases, nominal damages may be awarded. For example, the compensation payable to the plaintiff may be as low as 5 rupees Injuries sustained by the plaintiff are not necessarily relevant for the cause of action; they may only be relevant as regards the number of damages awarded the purpose of the action is served only if the violation of the right does not go unpunished. If the court believes that the violation is due to malicious and mischievous acts, as was the case in the Bhim Singh case, then the court may award even exemplary damages.

• Case Law
Ashby v. white
In this case, the plaintiff succeeded in his action, even though the defendant’s act did not cause any damage. The plaintiff was a qualified voter at Parliamentary election, but the defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to take plaintiff’s vote. No loss was suffered by such refusal because the candidate for whom he wanted to vote won the election in spite of that It was held that the defendant was liable.

Words of CJ Holt
“If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy, if he is injured in the exercise of enjoyment of it; and indeed, it is a vein thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for a want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.”

“Every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost the party One farthing. For a damage not merely pecuniary but an injury imports a damage, a person is thereby hindered of his right. As in an action for slanderous the ear, though Words, though a man does not lose a penny by reason of speaking them, yet he shall have an action.

So, if a man gives another a cuff on it cost him nothing, no, not so much as a little diachylon (plaster), yet he shall have his action, for it is a personal injury. So, a man shall have an action against another for riding over his ground, though it does him no damage; for it is an invasion of his property, and the other has no right to come there.”

Asharfilal v. Municipal Corporation of Agra
This case is similar to the British case of Ashby v. White. Herein, a voter’s name was dropped from the electoral list of local municipality elections due to which he was deprived from exercising his legal right to vote. Consequently, he brought about a plaint for damages to demand compensation from the Municipal Corporation of Agra for the violation of his legal right. The court citing Ashby v. White judgement, awarded nominal damages to the appellant.

Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
In this case Bhim Singh was an MLA of Jammu Kashmir State Legislative Assembly who, on his way to attend a legislative assembly vote, was apprehended by the state police and kept under illegal incarceration beyond reasonable time duration. A Habeas Corpus plea was filed by his wife to obtain his Malafide release.

Upon investigation, it was found that the MLA was not produced before the magistrate within the reasonable of 24 hours after his arrest and also the police had obtained the arrest orders under clandestine circumstances which warranted due investigation and hinted at police collusion with rival political parties.

The Supreme Court recognized the democratic right of MLA Bhim Singh and granted compensatory damages of Rs. 50,000. Further, the relevant police official was reprimanded for dereliction of their lawful duty and Malafide conduct.

Marzetti v. Williams
The plaintiff wanted to withdraw from his bank account using cheque. However, he was prevented from doing so by the bank manager. As a result, the petitioner filed a suit for damages on account of infringement of his legal right. The court recognized that the managers conduct of preventing the plaintiff from money from his own account even when there was sufficient money without any overdraft charges was a violation of the legal right of the plaintiff and liable to be compensated.