send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
In the law of torts, the Court while awarding damages to the injured person makes all the possible effort to ensure that the amount or quantum of damages is optimal. It means that the damages awarded by the Courts should be reasonable and sufficient and neither insufficient or over-compensation is given to the claimant.
In determining the optimal damages the following factors are considered by the Court:
Thus after considering the relevance of these factors the Court decides the damages which have to be paid by the defendant in case he is found guilty of tort against the plaintiff.
Nominal damages are those in which even though the plaintiff has suffered a legal injury at the hands of the defendant, there is no actual suffered by him. These damages are provided in the cases of Injuria sine damno in which the Court recognises the violation of the right of the plaintiff but the amount of damages are so nominal or low because of no actual loss to the plaintiff.
In these type of damages, the Court recognises that the right of the plaintiff is violated but to show that the suit brought by the plaintiff is of such a trivial nature that it has only wasted the time of the Court, the Court awards a meagre amount to the plaintiff as damages. This is similar to the nominal damages but the only difference between the two is that in nominal damages the plaintiff suffers no actual loss and in contemptuous damages, the plaintiff suffers actual damage but it is a trivial one in which he does not deserves to be fully compensated.
Compensatory damages are awarded to help the plaintiff to reach his original position at which he was before the tort was committed against him. These damages are not awarded to punish the defendant but to restore the plaintiff to his previous situation. These damages are very helpful in cases of monetary losses in which the amount of loss can be easily calculated and therefore that amount can be ordered to be paid to the plaintiff so that he can replace the damaged product or goods with such amount.
These damages are awarded for the extra harm which is caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated by the compensatory damages and it is given for factors such as the loss of self-esteem, pain and agony suffered by the plaintiff etc. which cannot be calculated in monetary terms. These damages are therefore additional damages which are awarded to the plaintiff other than the damages awarded for his pecuniary loss.
These damages are also known as exemplary damages and the purpose of these damages is to punish the defendant and to make an example of him so that others are deterred from committing the same act as he did. Thus, whenever a Court feels that the act of the defendant was severely gross, it awards punitive damages against him to the plaintiff.
Legal Principle: A person is liable to compensate others for harm caused by the escape of any inherently dangerous material that he keeps on his land.
Fact Situation: Ankit lights a bonfire in his courtyard to warm himself up during a cold winter evening. A strong wind suddenly blows some sparks from the fire, on to his neighbour’s house which catches fire and gets completely destroyed.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Ankit’s neighbour is liable to Ankit for distress caused by keeping a house that catches fire so quickly.
Ankit is not liable because nobody could foresee that the sudden wind will blow the sparks to cause a fire.
Ankit’s neighbour cannot make Ankit liable for the loss of his house since it was an accidental fire that destroyed it.
Ankit is liable to compensate because the fire escaped from his premises to burn down his neighbour’s house.
By: Parvesh Mehta ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses