Damnum Sine Injuria v. Injuria Sine Damnum
Both these legal maxims are essential in Tort law. People tend to confuse between the two quite often and this article includes the differences of the same.
Damnum Sine Injuria —
This maxim translates to damages without injury, it means that damages are done to a person even when there is no violation of any legal right of a person. So, if there is no infringement of your legal right but the damage is done in some way or the other then it may not be a valid ground to sue. To divide and understand the terms, Damnum means “loss or damage related to money, health, property, etc”, Sine means “without”, Injuria means “violation of a legal right which a person has vested upon him /her by the virtue of law”. In law moral wrongs do not have any legal remedy unless there are violations of laws. There are many cases where an act or omission of an act causes harm to someone but that loss or harm does not infringe the legal right vested upon them.
In case the act done by the defendant was intentional the court will not provide and damages (compensation) to the plaintiff if rights are not violated. A famous landmark case of Gloucester Grammar School talks about this maxim. In this case, the plaintiff had a school and the defendant was a teacher of the school, due to some conflicts with the plaintiff the defendant resigned from the school and opened a rival school next to the plaintiff’s school. Since the defendant was a well-known teacher and quite famous amongst students, many students from the plaintiff’s school left and joined the defendant’s school. Court held that such a suit could not stay as there was no violation of the legal right of the plaintiff even though he faced monetary loss due to students leaving his school. The defendant was not held liable and no compensation was granted to the plaintiff.
Injuria Sine Damnum —
This maxim means that no harm is done to the plaintiff but his/her legal right is infringed. If the legal right vested upon a person is infringed then the person whose right is violated can bring an action before the court of law against the person whose act or omission caused such an infringement. This maxim even includes threat, i.e., if a person threatens to violate the right of another person, even that will lead to an action in a court of law. Even when the harm is not completely done but the person has felt that there is a threat to his right then he has full authority to sue. The same is also mentioned under Declaration and Injunction in provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 34 and 39).
This maxim is applicable in cases of trespass, wrongful detention (or imprisonment), etc. Thus, Injuria Sine Damnum provides remedies in the form of compensation to the plaintiff whose right is violated even though there is no harm done to health, no loss of money, money’s worth, or property. In the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the plaintiff who was an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir, was on his way to attend a parliamentary session and at that time he was wrongfully arrested and detained. Also, he was not taken to the court on time and his right to attend the parliamentary session was infringed (Article 21 of the Indian Constitution). Supreme Court held the defendant liable and Bhim Singh was compensated with INR 50,000 as damages. Thus, the maxim Injuria Sine Damnum played its role.
Conclusion —
Under Tort Law, both these maxims are important. Damnum Sine Injuria says that even if there is any moral wrong, for the harm suffered by the plaintiff no action can be brought before any court of law as the legal right is at its place. Injuria Sine Damnum says that even if the plaintiff suffered no harm, the legal right is violated so action can be brought in a court of law.
