In true sense, there is a big difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum. These two maxims are totally opposite to each other. One is actionable and the other is not. You can easily understand the whole difference between these two - click here
Every person has a right to protect his life, personal liberty, property and freedom. When any person's legal right is infringed, they have a cause of action, even if no actual harm or damage is caused. The law of torts protects these legal rights and helps to compensate the plaintiff.
Here, the defendant did an act by causing this plaintiff's right to be violated. Even no damage is caused to the party who has suffered. The person who commits such a violation will be held liable for infringement of rights.
Definition:-
Injuria Sine Damno also known as Injuria sine Damnum which means an infringement or violation of a legal right without any actual loss. It manifests a situation where the defendant does an act by causing the plaintiff's legal rights to be infringed even if no loss has been suffered.
It recognizes some legal rights violations that can be considered as wrongful acts, regardless of whether they cause direct harm or not. In such cases, plaintiffs still have a cause of action and seek legal remedies to protect their rights.
Injuria - means legal injury or infringement of legal right
Sine - means without
Damnum - means damage or loss in terms of money
Injuria Sine Damnum = Infringement of Legal Rights without Damage
Hence, the maxim talks about the legal injury of plaintiff without any actual damage to the physical injury or in terms of money. It is a situation where a plaintiff can claim for damages because anyone has no right to violate another person's legal rights. You can easily go to the court for compensation unlike Damnum sine Injuria.
Also read:- What is Damnum sine Injuria
Landmark Cases on Injuria Sine Damnum:-
Ashby v. White (1703)
This is a very landmark case under this maxim where the plaintiff, who was a qualified voter. Who was wrongfully detained by authority and denied to cast his vote in the parliamentary elections.
However, he did not get any direct loss thereafter his preferred candidate had already won. Even then the defendants were still held liable for violation of the right to vote.
In this case, the principle of harm extends beyond mere financial loss and adding the violation of rights will be entitled to legal remedies.
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Mr. Bhim Singh, which was a MLA of Jammu and Kashmir was unlawfully detained by the police authority. This arrest was done to prevent him from attending the legislative assembly sessions and to stop him from casting their vote. However, his preferred candidate won, even then his right to vote was violated.
He was arrested and not followed the rules properly by authority like present before the court within 24 hours. The case revolves around the violation of personal liberty, as he is being kept in a secret location.
Even with obtaining custody of the arrested person, the police failed to produce him before the judge within the required time. This was considered a gross negligence and violation of Article 21 and Article 22 of the Indian Constitution.
The court stated that the arrest was made with malafide intention, and bhim singh was awarded Rs. 50,000 as damages. The court has a duty to award appropriate financial compensation under the case of injuria sine damnum.
Ravi Yashvant Bhoir v. District Collector
This case also known as Raigad case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided worthwhile insights into the concept of legal rights and also provided the requirements for a valid claim. A legal right is an individual right which has been protected by the state. If anyone violated those rights they will be held liable for punishment according to law.
There are some essentials are given below to challenge an act or omission:-
1. One must suffer a legal injury rather than actual loss.
2. The right must be available to the plaintiff (who’s legal right has been violated).
3. Act or omission should be done by the defendant.
However, not all harm comes under the category of wrongful act. According to law, if the act does not affect a legal right, it will not fall under the ambit of Injuria sine Damno. These harms without a legal injury are covered by "damnum sine injuria".
Sain Das v. Ujagar Singh (1940)
Under this case, it was stated the principle of Injuria sine Damnum will also be applicable in trespass cases. Where nominal compensation is generally awarded. A person when doing an act of unjustifiable intrusion on another person's property. Then this principle will apply.
Although, it was also said that this principle will not be extended to every property case, the specific circumstances should apply to this maxim.
Legal Remedy Even Without Actual Loss
The law gives compensation even if there is no harm. It is a situation where there is a threat of infringement of a legal right. The person whose right has been violated can start legal proceedings against that person who infringed the right under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Redress the conflict between plaintiff and defendant by damages and an injunction to protect the rights.
Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum
These maxims sound similar in pronunciation, which is why sometimes, the people get confused. Now, we will discuss the difference between the Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum so that you can understand easily. One is the violation of legal rights whereas another deals with actual harm or damage suffering which does not provide remedy. The following table below highlights the differences between these two doctrines:
| Basis | Injuria Sine Damnum | Damnum Sine Injuria |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | There is no real loss or harm but it refers to the infringement of the plaintiff's legal rights. The plaintiff has the right to pursue legal action. | It describes a situation in which the plaintiff actually suffers loss or harm, and there are no legal rights being violated. There is no remedy available under the law of tort. |
| Compensation | The plaintiff may receive monetary damages from the court as compensation for the violation of their legal rights. | The court does not award any compensation because no legal right has been violated. |
| Nature | The primary concern is the violation of a legal right even if there is an absence of actual harm or damage. | Actual harm without any violation of legal rights is the main focus. |
| Case Laws | - Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir - Ashby v. White |
- Gloucester Grammar School Case - Ushaben v. Bhagyalakshmi Chitra Mandir |
Conclusion:
The plaintiff gets damages because he/she suffered the loss (because of infringement of his/her legal right). The amounts for the compensation are determined according to the loss suffered by the plaintiff. It helps to compensate the victim. The court has a duty to give the unliquidated damages to the plaintiff.
It helps the plaintiff to recover the loss and bring it back to the initial position. We can also relate "Ubi jus ibi remedium" maxim with "Injuria sine Damnum" because this also talks about the rights. This Ubi jus ibi remedium means "Where there is law, there is remedy".
