Tag: #Torts

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Types and Features of Law of Torts in India
3.	Principles of Torts in India
4.	Lack of Awareness Regarding the Law of Torts in India
5.	Implications of Lack of Awareness Regarding the Law of Torts in India
6.	Various Steps to Increase Awareness Regarding the Law of Torts in India
7.	Conclusion

Introduction

The law of torts in India is a complex and multifaceted area of law that governs civil wrongs or injuries caused to a person, property, reputation, or rights. This body of law has developed over time through judicial decisions, statutes, and other sources of law. Throughout history, the law of torts has evolved from homomorphic retaliation to compensatory damages, from negligent liability to multiple liabilities, from absolute liability to relative liability, and then to absolute liability. Since modern times, continental European law has established the status of tort law, while UK and US torts have flourished based on case law. In general, legal law has always had a remedial and preventive function, but the dominant functions have varied in different periods. However, tort has not flourished in India as rapidly as it should have. India largely inherited tort law from Britain, which introduced common law in India in the 18th century. In the quarter century following the 1857 rebellion, the legal system was rationalized and systematized. Mr Frederick Pollock drafted a Civil Law Bill in 1886 which was prepared for the Government of India, although it was never codified. 

Losses were common between 1914 and 1965 but were few and far between during those 52 years. This trend continued and it was found that there were fewer incidents of harm reported. In the current situation, the number of reported cases is increasing, but this is not a justified increase. It is not true that the court would not emphasize its importance, because individual cases have spoken about the right to compensation and its importance. In one such case, Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd v State of Gujarat, the court said that “Indeed, the whole law of tort is founded and built on the moral that no one has the right to harm or injure others intentionally or even innocently. It would therefore be primitive to classify strictly or to close the ultimate horizon of tort liability, which is always expanding and growing. Even from the point of view of social development, orderly growth of society and cultural complexity, a liberal approach to damage liability by the courts is more favourable.

In this article, we will provide a detailed explanation of the law of torts in India, including its scope, principles, and remedies. The article with throw light on the basic aspects of the Law of Torts, with defining reasons why the Law of Torts are still ambiguous to the Majority of People in the Country and suggestions for improving it.

Types and Features of Law of Torts in India

Torts in India are primarily based on English common law, which has been modified by local legislation and judicial interpretations. The term “tort” comes from the French word “tort,” which means “wrong.” Torts are civil wrongs that are committed by one party against another, resulting in harm or injury. The injured party has the right to seek compensation or other forms of relief for the harm suffered. The Three prominent Types of Law of Torts are as follows:

Intentional Torts: Intentional Torts are those where the defendant intentionally or with a deliberate motive causes harm to the plaintiff. The harm may be physical, emotional, or financial. Examples of intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land or property, defamation, and conversion.

Negligent Torts: Negligent Torts are those where the defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under similar circumstances, and this conduct causes harm to the plaintiff. Examples of negligent torts include medical negligence, professional negligence, motor vehicle accidents, and premises liability.

Strict Liability Torts: Strict liability Torts are those where the defendant is held responsible for harm caused to the plaintiff, regardless of whether the defendant was at fault or not. In other words, the defendant is liable even if they did not intend to cause harm, and there was no negligence on their part. Examples of strict liability torts include product liability cases, where a defective product causes harm to the consumer, and liability for hazardous activities like transporting hazardous chemicals, where the harm caused cannot be avoided even with reasonable care

Principles of Torts in India

There are several key principles of tort law in India that help to define and clarify the scope of the law. Some of these principles include:

• Duty of Care: The principle of duty of care holds that a person has a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. This principle is central to many negligence torts, as it establishes the standard of care that a defendant is expected to meet.

• Causation: Causation is the principle that a defendant’s conduct must have caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff. In order to establish causation, the plaintiff must show that their injury was a direct result of the defendant’s conduct.

• Proximate Cause: Proximate cause is the principle that a defendant is only liable for harm that is reasonably foreseeable as a result of their conduct. This principle helps to limit liability to those harms that are closely connected to the defendant’s conduct.

• Contributory Negligence: Contributory negligence is the principle that a plaintiff’s own negligence may contribute to the harm suffered, and may therefore limit their ability to recover damages.

• Res Ipsa Loquitur: Res Ipsa Loquitur is a Latin term that means “the thing speaks for itself.” This principle applies in cases where the harm suffered is so obviously the result of the defendant’s conduct that no further proof of causation is necessary.

Lack of Awareness Regarding the Law of Torts in India

Despite the significance of tort law in India, there is a lack of awareness regarding this area of law. Many people are not aware of their rights and remedies under the law of torts, which can lead to a lack of accountability and redressal for wrongful conduct. There are several reasons for the lack of awareness regarding the law of torts in India:

• Inadequate education and awareness: The first and foremost reason is the lack of adequate education and awareness about Torts laws in India. Most people in India are not aware of what Torts are and how they can be enforced. As a result, they don’t know how to seek compensation or take legal action in the event of an injury or harm caused by someone else’s negligence or intentional act.

• Limited legal literacy: Legal literacy in India is limited, and there is a significant lack of knowledge about the legal system and its procedures. This lack of knowledge leads to people not knowing how to access legal resources or how to file legal claims, including Torts claims.

• Poor enforcement: Another significant reason is the poor enforcement of Torts laws in India. There is a lack of judicial efficiency in India, with a large number of cases pending in courts. This leads to delays in settlement of claims, which discourages people from pursuing legal action.

• Lack of legal aid: Many people in India do not have access to legal aid or representation, which makes it difficult for them to seek justice in the event of harm caused by others. This is especially true for marginalized and vulnerable populations, who are more likely to be victims of harm.

• Limited media coverage: There is limited media coverage of Torts laws in India. The media often focuses on criminal cases, and civil cases, such as Torts cases, are not given much attention. This lack of media coverage contributes to the overall lack of awareness of Torts laws in India.

In conclusion, the lack of awareness of Torts laws in India can be attributed to several factors, including inadequate education and awareness, limited legal literacy, poor enforcement, lack of legal aid, and limited media coverage. Addressing these factors could help increase awareness and understanding of Torts laws and improve access to justice for those who have been harmed

Implications of Lack of Awareness Regarding the Law of Torts in India

The lack of awareness regarding the law of torts in India can have several implications that affect the working of the Law of Torts in the Country. Due to people’s wrong interpretation of the Law of Torts and their failing to understand these laws, the Law of Torts still poses to be an issue that is untouched. The implications can be as follows:

• Denial of justice: One of the most significant implications of the lack of awareness regarding the law of Torts is the denial of justice. When people are not aware of their rights under the law of Torts, they may suffer harm without any remedy. This leads to a sense of helplessness among victims, who may not know how to seek compensation or take legal action in the event of harm caused by someone else’s negligence or intentional act.

• Increased incidents of harm: Lack of awareness of the law of Torts can also lead to an increase in incidents of harm. People may not take necessary precautions or exercise due care to avoid causing harm to others if they are not aware of their legal obligations. This can lead to an increase in accidents and injuries, which could have been avoided if people were more aware of their legal responsibilities.

• Burden on the legal system: When people are not aware of their rights under the law of Torts, they may not seek legal recourse in case of harm. This leads to a reduced number of cases being filed. However, this also puts a burden on the legal system as cases that could have been avoided or settled through alternative means end up in court, leading to longer wait for times and delays in justice.

• Inefficiency in compensation: The lack of awareness of the law of Torts can also lead to inefficiencies in compensation. Victims may not know how to assess the damages they have suffered or what compensation they are entitled to under the law. This can lead to inadequate compensation or overcompensation, depending on the circumstances.

• Negative impact on business and the economy: Lack of awareness of the law of Torts can also have a negative impact on business and the economy. Businesses that are not aware of their legal obligations may cause harm to customers, employees, or other stakeholders, leading to legal liability and financial losses. This can have a ripple effect on the economy, leading to reduced confidence among investors and consumers.

• Inefficiency of the Legal System: The lack of awareness regarding tort law can lead to inefficiencies in the legal system as victims of wrongful conduct may not pursue legal action due to lack of knowledge.

Various Steps to Increase Awareness Regarding the Law of Torts in India

Increasing awareness regarding the law of torts in India is crucial to ensure that victims of wrongful conduct receive adequate redressal and that tortfeasors are held accountable for their actions. Here are some steps that can be taken to increase awareness regarding tort law in India:

• Public education campaigns: Public education campaigns can be launched to increase awareness regarding the law of Torts. This can be done through media channels such as TV, radio, newspapers, and social media. The campaigns can be designed to target specific groups, such as consumers, employees, and business owners.

• Workshops and training sessions: Workshops and training sessions can be organized for lawyers, law students, and other legal professionals to increase their knowledge and understanding of the law of Torts. This can help them provide better legal advice and representation to clients and ensure that justice is served.

• Inclusion in school curriculum: The law of Torts can be included in the school curriculum to increase awareness among young people. This can be done by introducing the concepts of Torts and their implications in civics and social studies classes.

• Collaboration with industry bodies: Industry bodies such as chambers of commerce and trade associations can collaborate with legal bodies and conduct awareness campaigns among their members. This can help ensure that businesses are aware of their legal obligations and can take necessary steps to avoid causing harm to others.

• Legal aid clinics: Legal aid clinics can be set up in various cities and towns to provide legal advice and representation to those who cannot afford to pay for legal services. This can help ensure that people are aware of their legal rights and can seek legal recourse in case of harm caused by others.

• Simplification of legal language: Legal language can be simplified to make it more accessible to the general public. This can help ensure that people are not intimidated by legal jargon and can understand their legal rights and obligations.

Conclusion

The law of torts in India is an important branch of civil law that governs civil wrongs or injuries caused to a person, property, reputation, or rights. Despite its significance, there is a lack of awareness regarding tort law in India. This lack of awareness can lead to a lack of accountability and redressal for wrongful conduct, an increase in wrongful conduct, and inefficiencies in the legal system. To increase awareness regarding tort law in India steps such as incorporation in legal education, public awareness campaigns, translation of legal material, legal aid services, and inclusion in the school curriculum should be taken. Despite the many areas where the public can go to court, Indian tort remains very underdeveloped and unexplored.

One reason that has remained unchanged in the past and present, which has caused the lack of tort cases, is the lack of codified legal laws, which creates a lot of uncertainty in the regulation and resolution of these cases. In addition, the lack of precedents is a problem, as few cases come to court. To promote this goal in a growing country like India, codification and general public awareness are necessary to inform them about their rights and the remedies available in case of violation of those rights. Local conditions must be vigorously addressed and assistance provided so that people can trust the laws. In addition, lawyers and judges who have played an important role in advancing tort law must continue to facilitate these cases.

 If these issues are taken care of, the law can certainly get a good hold in the Indian context due to the growing economic activities which may also involve large-scale violations. This would help give lay people the opportunity to seek redress for any wrong done to them and would be a much-needed development in legal proceedings. It is crucial that the general public is aware of their rights and remedies under the law of torts to ensure that they are protected from wrongful conduct and that tortfeasors are held accountable for their actions.

This article is authored by Rishaan Gupta, a 1st year Student at National Law University, Delhi.

Read More Articles on Similar topics:

1. Development of the Law of Torts and the Role in Shaping Indian Judiciary, http://lexpeeps.in/development-of-the-law-of-torts-and-the-role-in-shaping-indian-judiciary/
2. Law of Torts: An Overview, http://lexpeeps.in/law-of-torts-an-overview/
3. Definitions and Development of Law of Torts, http://lexpeeps.in/definitions-and-development-of-law-of-torts/
4. Relevance of Torts in Present Scenario, http://lexpeeps.in/relevance-of-torts-in-present-scenario/

Introduction

The law of torts is a significant part of the Indian legal system, providing remedies to individuals who have suffered harm due to the wrongful acts of others. Over the years, the law of torts in India has witnessed significant growth and development, thanks to the active role played by the judiciary. The courts have interpreted and applied tort law principles in various cases, shaping and expanding the scope of the law. In this context, this discussion will examine the growth of the law of torts in India and the role of the judiciary in shaping it. We will also explore how the Indian courts have relied on the principles of tort law in other common law jurisdictions to fill gaps in the Indian law of torts.

Relevance

The law of torts in India has seen significant growth and development over the years, with the judiciary playing a crucial role in shaping and expanding the scope of the law. Tort law refers to civil wrongs or injuries that are committed by one party against another, resulting in harm or loss, and for which the aggrieved party can seek compensation.

The growth of the law of torts in India can be traced back to the colonial period when the British introduced the concept of negligence and other tortious liability concepts to the Indian legal system. Over time, Indian courts have expanded the scope of the law to include various types of torts, such as nuisance, defamation, and trespass.

One of the key factors that have contributed to the growth of the law of torts in India is the changing socio-economic and political landscape of the country. As India has developed into a more complex and diverse society, the legal system has had to adapt to meet the changing needs and demands of its citizens. The growth of tort law has been driven by a need to protect individual rights and interests, as well as to promote social justice and equity.

Another factor that has played a significant role in shaping the law of torts in India is the role of the judiciary. The Indian judiciary has been proactive in interpreting and expanding the scope of tort law, often relying on international legal principles and jurisprudence to guide its decisions. Through its judgments, the judiciary has not only clarified the legal principles and concepts of tort law but has also established new precedents that have had far-reaching implications for the development of the law.

One example of the judiciary’s role in shaping the law of torts in India is the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India^[1]. In this case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the concept of absolute liability, which holds industries strictly liable for any harm caused by their activities, regardless of whether they were negligent or not. This decision has had a significant impact on the development of environmental law in India, as it has provided a powerful tool for holding polluting industries accountable for their actions.

Another example of the judiciary’s role in shaping the law of torts in India is the recent case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India^[2]. In this case, the Supreme Court of India declared the practice of triple talaq (instant divorce) among Muslims to be unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights of women. This decision has not only had a significant impact on the rights of Muslim women but has also expanded the scope of tort law to include violations of fundamental rights as a tortious acts.

In conclusion, the growth of the law of torts in India has been driven by a need to protect individual rights and interests, promote social justice and equity, and adapt to the changing needs and demands of society. The judiciary has played a critical role in shaping and expanding the scope of the law, through its proactive interpretation and application of legal principles and concepts. As India continues to evolve, it is likely that the law of torts will continue to grow and develop, driven by the changing needs and demands of its citizens and the role of the judiciary in shaping the law.

Criticism of Growth of Torts

The law of torts in India has seen significant growth and development over the years, and the judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the law. Tort law is concerned with providing remedies for civil wrongs or injuries caused by one party to another. The development of the law of torts in India can be traced back to the colonial period when the British introduced the concept of tort law in India.

One of the significant contributions of the judiciary in shaping the law of torts in India has been the recognition and expansion of the scope of tort liability. In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India^[3], the Supreme Court recognized the principle of absolute liability, which holds that any enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity must pay compensation to those who suffer harm from such activity, irrespective of whether or not the enterprise has been negligent. This decision expanded the scope of tort liability and ensured that victims of industrial accidents and environmental disasters received compensation for their losses. Another important contribution of the judiciary has been the recognition of new causes of action in tort law.

For instance, in the case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan^[4], the Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of a woman’s fundamental rights and awarded compensation to the victim. Similarly, in the case of R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court^[5], the court recognized the tort of criminal contempt, which had not been previously recognized in India.

The judiciary has also played a crucial role in developing the principles of vicarious liability in India. Vicarious liability holds that an employer is liable for the torts committed by its employees in the course of their employment. The doctrine of vicarious liability has been expanded to cover not only traditional employer-employee relationships but also situations where a person has a sufficient degree of control over the activities of another person.

However, there are also some criticisms of the growth of the law of torts in India and the role of the judiciary in shaping the law. One of the main criticisms is that the development of tort law in India has been slow and inconsistent, and there is a lack of clarity on many tort law principles. For instance, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a tortious act, and the standards for determining negligence are not well-defined. This lack of clarity has led to uncertainty and confusion in the application of tort law in India.

Another criticism is that the judiciary’s role in shaping the law of torts has been too expansive, and this has led to judicial activism. Some argue that the courts have taken on a policymaking role in developing tort law, which should be left to the legislature. Judicial activism has also led to an increase in litigation and the clogging of the court’s dockets. In conclusion, while the growth of the law of torts in India and the judiciary’s role in shaping the law have been significant, there are also criticisms of the slow and inconsistent development of the law and the judiciary’s expansive role in policymaking. There is a need for greater clarity and coherence in tort law principles to ensure greater certainty and predictability in their application.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the law of torts has seen significant growth and development in India over the years. The judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the law through its interpretations and rulings on various tort cases. The courts have often applied principles from other common law jurisdictions to fill gaps in the Indian law of torts. Additionally, the judiciary has expanded the scope of tort liability by recognizing new causes of action and extending the boundaries of existing torts. Overall, the growth of the law of torts in India and the role of the judiciary in shaping it have been instrumental in providing a remedy to individuals who have suffered harm due to the wrongful acts of others.

---

Endnotes:

1. M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965
2. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)
3. Ibid 1
4. Vishaka and Ors. v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
5. R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, 2009 8 SCC 106

This article is written by Aehra Tayyaba Hussain, a 1st-year B.A. LLB student at Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad. 

Introduction

Tort is a civil wrong, meaning it is a wrong committed against a person. Tort comes from the Latin word “tortum,” which means “crooked” or “twisted.” It is equivalent to the English term ‘wrong’ in this sense. There are two kinds of law: civil and criminal. Tort and contract law are two subsets of civil law. It’s essentially a violation of a legal obligation. It violates the legal rights of others. A tort happens when someone intentionally or carelessly harms another person.

Civilization and law coexist. It is not possible for one to exist without the other. If one thrives, the other develops as well, and if one declines, the other suffers. As a result, tort law was created to deal with everyday offenses.

The Tort Law can be traced back to the Roman precept alterium non-laedere. The maxim means “not to harm another,” implying that no one should be harmed by their actions or words. This maxim is similar to the maxims of honesty vivere, which means “to live honorably,” and suum clique tribuere, which means “to render to every man that which belongs to him,” or “to bring fairness to every person.” The development of tort law can be traced back to these three maxims.

What is Tort according to jurists?

Salmond defined tort as, “It is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common-law action for unliquidated damages and which is not solely a violation of contract, trust, or other essentially equitable obligation.”

Winfield mentions, “Tortious liability comes from the breach of a primary legal obligation: this duty is owed to all individuals, and its failure is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages,” Winfield says.

The definitions of Winfield and Salmond are incompatible. The practical point of view is represented by Salmond’s definition, but the theoretician point of view is represented by Winfield’s definition. Salmond’s point of view is preferred by lawyers, but Winfield’s is preferred by students. Furthermore, Salmond’s perspective is narrower, whereas Windfield’s perspective is larger.

Application of English Law of Torts in India

In India, tort law is based on English tort law.
The English Law of Torts has a significant influence on Indian tort law, despite the fact that the act has been changed to reflect Indian legislation. When the British ruled India, they established their own set of rules and procedures for administering justice. Jimha, which means crooked in Sanskrit, was believed to be akin to “tortious of fraudulent conduct” in ancient Hindu law. At the time, the scope of British tort was limited.

Because the Indians were utterly uninformed of the English laws, they were found to be unjust and inequitable. It was difficult to administer Indians in the early days of British law since there was an English Judge who had to deal with a case in a foreign language. As a result, they resolved to draught an Indian Tort Law based on English concepts in order to avoid chaos. They chose to set up courts in India in the 18th century after studying the Indian laws at the time and obtaining the necessary approval.

Mayors Courts in the Presidency Towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay were the first courts established by the British in India. These courts were subject to English statutes and Acts, which were then implemented in England.
The courts established that “justice, equity, and good conscience” were the guiding principles at the time. The Privy Council understood the phrase “justice, equity, and good conscience” to include norms of English law that are suitable to Indian society and circumstances. All of this meant that the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras adhered to the Common Law of Torts, while the other courts applied the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Also, when looking at Indian decisions, Justice Bhagwati stated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,

“In a highly industrialized economy, we need to develop new ideas and lay down new rules that will effectively deal with new challenges that occur.” We cannot allow our judicial thought to be shaped by the law as it currently exists in England, or for that matter, in any other country. We are absolutely open to receiving illumination from any source, but we must first establish our own jurisprudence.” We can infer from the words that Justice Bhagwati recognized the importance of having one’s own law and how it contributes to the nation’s growth.”

The main purpose of Law of Torts in India

The primary goal of tort law is to provide compensation to people who have been injured. Though, in current times, the goal is to distribute losses among those who are connected in some way.

Furthermore, some authors argue that Tort Law is more concerned with punishing than compensating. For the purpose of Torts, everyone has their own point of view. The violation of a general duty is a common ingredient in both crimes and torts. Murder, robbery, burglary, and other major crimes are all under governmental supervision. The state has power over all common wrongs in Tort Law as well. Individual harm is thought to be equivalent to societal harm.
As a result, the primary goal of tort law is to punish wrongdoers and foster social peace.

Reasons for the slow development of Law of Torts in India

In comparison to other countries, India’s tort law is not well developed. Even the Indian Tort Law does not have a codified version. There are several reasons for India’s sluggish development of tort law, some of which are stated below:

1. The law is ambiguous. People face a great deal of uncertainty because the legislation is not codified and is still in its early phases of development. This is why only a small number of cases are filed under Indian Tort Law. Furthermore, there are few precedents, which adds to the vagueness of Tort law. The existing precedents are from English Tort law and cannot be applied to Indian law.
2. There is a general lack of political awareness among the general public. Because most people are unaware of their rights, tort law is rarely employed in the country. This issue arises as a result of India’s widespread illiteracy, which also causes people to avoid going to court to exercise their rights. People who carry out their responsibilities are given more weight than those who demand their rights.
3. Why do people disregard their legal rights? This is due to a lack of awareness of their rights and the country’s high illiteracy rate. Because of their illiteracy, people are unaware of their rights and are hesitant to seek redress through the courts.
4. Poverty continues to be a factor in India’s delayed development of tort law. The majority of India’s population is economically poor, and as a result, they are unable to afford the hefty costs of litigation. This is still a major reason to avoid bringing a Tort case.
5. The court system is also highly expensive. The cost of going to court and hiring a lawyer is extremely significant. As a result, rather than approaching the court, the poor man chooses to suffer the torture. The cases are likewise handled in a molasses-like manner. On the other hand, in England, the administration of justice is so cheap and quick that these types of cases are resolved in under a year. All of these issues contribute to the tort law’s delayed evolution.

The number of pending cases in India as of October 13, 2018, is depicted in the graph below.

The graph was created using data from the National Judicial Data Grid. Due to the sluggish evolution of Indian legislation, a considerable number of cases are still waiting.

Have Torts been Ignored in India?

The next stage will be to see if the Indian court system has disregarded tort law. Simply said, tort law has not been forgotten. The M.C. Mehta case, which established the absolute liability rule, the Supreme Court’s direction on Multinational Corporation Liability, recognition of Governmental tort by government employees, principles on the legality of the state, the evolution of the tort of sexual harassment, a grant of interim compensation to a rape victim, and award of damages for violations of human rights under writ jurisdiction are all examples of this.

Despite the fact that most areas of law, such as crimes, contracts, property, trusts, and so on, have been systematically organized, India’s lack of a torts code is notable. The work of Indian attorneys and judges has contributed significantly to the evolution of tort law. Tort reform has been advocated for about a century and a half, with the earliest support coming from Sir F Pollock in 1886, who drafted the ‘Indian Civil Wrongs Bill.’ The bill, however, was not brought up for consideration in the legislature.

The value of code cannot be denied, but it is vital to remember that tort law is still in its infancy, and codifying it would not only be difficult but may also stifle its progress. However, the lack of a code prevents torts from becoming the dominant mode of litigation. The evolution of tort law in India pales in comparison to that of other progressive countries, where tort law is substantially more mature.

As previously stated, codification of tort law at this time would be premature. A more prudent approach would be, to begin with, enactments in areas where case law is lacking. The subject of the government’s liability when it comes to torts committed by its workers is one of the first suggestions made by the Law Commission in this regard.

In the report of the commission led by MN Venkatachaliah CJ, the National Commission for Review of the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) has also recommended a statute that makes the state liable for the torts of its employees (2002). The small volume of tort litigation in Indian courts, on the other hand, contributes considerably to why an Indian code on this branch of law may be premature. Currently, only a small percentage of tort lawsuits are ever brought to court. However, this is a catch-22 since until a code for tort law is developed, there will be few tort cases brought in courts because people have no means of knowing what they are getting into.

Concerns with Tortious Litigation in India

Despite the fact that India is regarded as a litigious country, the number of lawsuits filed is quite modest. This is because of the limits and roadblocks that have been placed in place, including prohibitive fees, lengthy delays, and inadequate harm grants. In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the number of cases completed, particularly in cases involving the administration. This is typically linked to India’s financial development and, as a result, increased awareness of legal rights.

Common law jurisprudence shaped the Indian legal system and was introduced to the Indian people in an uncommon way. Although the English tort law served as a model for its Indian counterpart, its application is still ambiguous and limited. Several decisions and cases involving defamation and contributions between joint tortfeasors plainly illustrate that India cannot and does not adhere to English common law.

The English tort law applied differentially to Presidency towns and the mofussil throughout the colonial era. Indian citizens are exempt from the champerty and maintenance statutes. In fact, only those provisions of English tort law that suit the local conditions in India have been upheld and are valid in India. Given this situation, determining whether a given English statute also applies in India is difficult.

It was also unclear whether a specific statute remained in force in India after being abolished or changed under English law. For such a question, there is no final answer. As a result, unless a judge decided otherwise, it was difficult to know whether aspects of English law were applicable in India. Tort law remained uncodified even after the Constitution took effect. Article 372 of the Indian Constitution states that legislation in effect immediately prior to the adoption of the Constitution remains in effect. Any rulings issued by English courts, on the other hand, are no longer required to be upheld by Indian courts.

These decisions may only have persuasive power at most. As a result, the state of tort law remains unchanged. Because English tort law cannot be applied generally to the Indian setting, Indian tort law as a whole remains ambiguous. Furthermore, there is still a discrepancy in the application of laws in Presidency towns against the mofussil.
Citizens do not have a clear knowledge of their rights and responsibilities before going to court. Lawyers are likewise constrained in how much assistance they can provide in this circumstance because many areas of the law are still uncertain. The judge presiding over the case also has a difficult assignment ahead of him.

It’s simple to understand why victims often accept the wrongdoings they’ve been subjected to without pursuing legal redress. Is there always a way to stand up for one’s rights? The explanation, according to Professor Northrop, could be found in the cultural contrasts between eastern and western nations. Compromise is encouraged in Eastern societies. Furthermore, Asian tribes have a reluctance to use Western, right-wing legislation to resolve their conflicts. As a result, when it comes to torts, there is very little litigation.

People have been skeptical of such sweeping generalizations for a long time, while also urging that we reconsider the need for tort law litigation in India and its repercussions. Such recommendations strongly propose that empirical research be conducted to evaluate the validity of such reasons, which are mostly based on sociological, civilizational, and cultural elements.

If there is one thing that is certain in today’s culture, it is that quality justice is not provided; rather, it can only be purchased at a hefty cost. This is not to imply that the court is corrupt; rather, it demonstrates how a common man cannot even imagine receiving proper recompense for the damages to which he is entitled. This is true because the adversary can always use his money or influence to get around our country’s complicated judicial structure.

The commoner, on the other hand, will face a chain reaction of procedural issues as soon as he approaches the judicial system with his grievance, which will absorb all of his money, willpower, and time. The aggrieved will be obliged to pay hefty lawyer’s fees, court fees, and other incidental charges just to file his claim in court. To the uninitiated, it may not seem true, yet his legal expenses in seeking to recover his losses might sometimes much outweigh the original amount of his claim.

Unfortunately for him, if he loses at the conclusion of the trial, he may be forced to pay even more money to the court, first as costs, and then to file an appeal in a higher court. We haven’t even discussed the length of time it takes to resolve a civil case in India. According to studies, courts in tortious litigation cases take an average of nearly 6 years to reach a judgment. So far, the shortest time it has taken for a tort case to be resolved in 5 years, while the longest time it has taken is 13 years. Even severely harmed people are discouraged from resorting to civil action due to the excessive costs and lengthy decision-making process involved in tort claims.

We have highlighted a few cases that have further discouraged those who have been wronged in order to show the court attitude in such scenarios where compensations must be paid. According to precedent, in a case where the plaintiff’s claim was for Rs. 10,000/-, he was only awarded Rs. 1/- in compensation. In another case, two civil actions were valued at Rs. 500/- apiece, but the court only granted the aggrieved parties Rs. 60/- and Rs. 50/-, respectively.

The Hon’ble Nagpur Bench of the erstwhile Bombay High Court determined that in a matter where the claim was for Rs. 11,300/-, the aggrieved would be satisfied with an award of only Rs. 315/-. In a case before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, a plaintiff filed a claim for Rs. 10,000/- but was only given Rs. 650/- in compensation. It should be noted that these examples are somewhat ancient, yet they have been mentioned to emphasize the Indian judiciary’s inclination to ignore tort proceedings and award grossly disproportionate amounts when contrasted to the plaintiff’s claims.

Major Breakthroughs in Tort Law in India

UPHAR CINEMA CASE –The Gateway to Tort Law in India

The Uphaar Cinema, located in a wealthy suburb in the center of the country, New Delhi, caught fire on June 13, 1997, due to a malfunctioning generator mounted by the Electricity Board in the theatre’s basement. The exits from the balcony were clogged due to the installation of unlicensed seats years ago. As a result, the occupants inside the theatre were unable to flee, and fifty-nine people perished and another hundred were injured.

In November 1997, all of the injured’s outraged family members established an association and filed a complaint in the High Court of New Delhi, represented by a volunteer lawyer. The group sought Rs. 22.1 crore in compensation and Rs. 100 crore in punitive damages, which would be used to establish a trauma center, making it the biggest demand in an Indian tort case to date.

Following that, in 2003, the court ordered Rs. 21 crores in compensation for the families of the deceased people, as well as Rs. 1.04 crore for the 104 injured theatre-goers. In addition, a sum of Rs. 2.5 crore has been approved for the establishment of a trauma center in this regard.

The multimillionaire theatre owners were then charged with criminal offenses, and the Sessions Court found them guilty and sentenced them to two years in prison. However, the aggrieved association, dissatisfied with the penalty, went to the Supreme Court in 2007, which maintained the convictions and enhanced the sentence.

In India, the Uphaar Cinema Case was a watershed moment for tort relief in catastrophes. It had well-organized and affluent appellants represented by a dedicated lawyer who did not charge for his services, as well as a case with no evidentiary issues.

However, fourteen years after the fire, on October 13, 2011, the Supreme Court reduced the damages awarded to the deceased victims to a fraction of their original amount, from 2.5 crores to 25 lakhs, a 90% reduction, and all government agencies charged with the fire were exonerated except the Delhi Electricity Board. Even when it was a win-win case totally in favor of the appellants who had been tortured by the incompetent authorities, the future of mass tort in India appeared dismal once again.

In 2014, the Supreme Court heard a new appeal in the criminal case of Uphaar. It upheld the Ansals’ convictions, i.e. the cinema owners who had previously been found guilty, but it couldn’t agree on the amount of compensation to be paid to the victims. Justice T.S. Thakur favored restoring the Ansals’ original punishment, but Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra favored awarding Rs. 100 crore as compensation for the establishment of a Trauma Center in the Uphaar Victims’ memory. The judge’s readiness to award such a large sum for a tort law case in India, far bigger in magnitude than had previously been contemplated, demonstrated the growth of mass torts in India.

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION VS. V.P. SHANTHA– The Saha Case

In 1986, Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act, which established a three-tiered consumer grievance redress system to give remedies for substandard “goods and services” across the country. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that “medical services” would fall under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986’s “goods and services” category. As a result, medical claimants no longer have to travel to court and pay high court fees, and they began submitting claims in Consumer Tribunals, which accounted for the majority of the cases handled by the Consumer Tribunals at the time.
From 2008 to 2014, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Service delivered 154 medical malpractice lawsuits, accounting for 8% of its total judgments. Surprisingly, the claimants won over the medical practitioner in nearly 45 percent of the cases. From the moment the lawsuit was filed until the final verdict was reached, it took an average of 11.7 years.

An Indian-American couple traveled to Kolkata a year after the Uphaar tragedy to meet their relatives. The husband was a medical doctor, and the wife was a child psychologist who was 36 years old. The wife had a treatable but uncommon skin ailment and was admitted to the AMRI hospital, where she was cared for by a number of famous medical professionals. The treatment involved the administration of massive amounts of Depomoderol, which exacerbated the wife’s condition and finally led to her death.

Dr. Kunal Saha, the dissatisfied spouse, filed a complaint with the West Bengal Medical Council, which cleared the doctors. The spouse then filed criminal charges against the doctors under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The doctors were convicted by the West Bengal courts, but the Calcutta High Court overruled the District Court’s decision and exonerated them. Regrettably, the Supreme Court confirmed the Calcutta High Court’s decision regarding criminal responsibility.

Dr. Saha’s wife died as a result of the negligence of the three AMRI doctors, and a claim of Rs. 77 crore was made with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The National Consumer Disputes Redress Commission (NCDRC) dismissed his claim and complaint in 2006. Dr. Saha represented himself in all of these proceedings, which cost him in a number of ways: (1) He had to travel 50 times from the United States to India as the case advanced. (2) Due to legal and travel expenditures, he declared bankruptcy in the United States of America. (3) He did not take up his academic position in Cincinnati, and as a result, his academic career was cut short.

Finally, the Supreme Court of India rejected the NCDRC’s ruling in 2009, and the matter was referred back to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to determine the amount of compensation. In October 2011, the commission finally awarded Dr. Saha damages of Rs. 1.5 crore. When the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court, a sum of Rs. 6.08 crores was awarded to Dr. Saha, directed against the doctors and the hospital, plus interest of 6% per annum, more than double the compensation previously awarded.

The Saha Case is a classic example of a one-on-one case that resulted in a milestone in Indian tort law. The Supreme Court granted increased damages because of the loss of a long career with a high American income that was harmed. The Saha case is an interesting reversal of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, in which the perpetrator was an American Union Carbide Company and the victims were Indians, whereas the Saha case involved Indian wrongdoers and an American victim. We still don’t know if the broad tort damages based on monetary losses perpetuate gaps and inequality among the general public.

The Future of Torts in India – Conclusion

There is no empirical evidence to claim that India is a litigious nation. The truth is that Indian courts move slowly not because they are inept, but because there are too many cases for too few judges. We need to increase capacity in order to make our judicial system more strong, not just for civil cases, but also for criminal proceedings. Personal harm, which is addressed by tortious litigation elsewhere in the globe, requires significant attention in India, as has been adequately portrayed in this study. Tortious responsibility claims, both against the government and private parties, abound in the country. The procedure of approaching the court, on the other hand, is so delirious for the plaintiff that they are better off not going.

In general, as things stand now, those with money and privilege are able to buy their way out of the judicial system and avoid responsibility for their own negligent behavior. With little resources, it is the poor who must fight the system and the aggressor. This deplorable state of affairs necessitates a reassessment of tort litigation in India. Perhaps there is a need to constantly issue statutes that correctly deal with diverse tort law principles, rather than codifying and therefore making the entire branch immobile. A strong civil-litigation system will undoubtedly strengthen the government’s and citizens’ discipline, while also protecting human life and dignity. A strong civil-litigation system will undoubtedly strengthen the government’s and citizens’ discipline, while also elevating the value of human life and dignity for all people, not just the wealthy.

This article is written by Uday Todarwal.

Whenever one’s right is wronged, it is imperative that there is always some way to remedy that sufferance or injury caused to that person, to bring back the conviction of being just in a just society. It is done to bring about that same level of equilibrium prior to the right being wronged, the damage and injury caused. One can use the imagination of a scenario where one is wronged and has suffered some type of damage but if there was no remedy, the sufferings of that person would be prolonged, contributing to lack of peace and hence rendering the society’s system as being ineffective. If there is no relief, it would only lead to pent-up frustration and a feeling of insecurity. There would be constant feelings of apprehension due to a lack of guarantee of restoration, which would have been an important tool to the path of peace and security. Hence, the concept of torts came into the practice for this very purpose; to restore the victim of the wrong to their previous position prior to that action that led to injury or damage.

INTRODUCTION OF TORT LAW

The beginning of the Law of Torts can be followed by Roman statute alterium non-laedere. The saying signifies “not to harm another” for example not to hurt anybody by deeds or words. This saying is like trustworthiness vivere which signifies “to live respectably” and suum inner circle tribuere which is disclosed as to deliver to each man that has a place with him or it is an overall articulation to give equity to every individual. This multitude of three sayings can be ascribed for the advancement of the Law of Torts.

The fundamental goals of tort law are to compensate affected parties for harms inflicted by others, to hold those responsible that caused such injury, and to deter others from harming others. Torts allow the degree of loss to be shifted from the party who was injured to the party who caused it. Typically, a person seeking remedies under tort law will seek monetary compensation in the form of damages.

Remedies that are not normally used are injunction and restitution. The common law, the system that India follows, and state statutory law set the limits of tort law. Judges have broad discretion in assessing which activities qualify as legally cognizable wrongs, which defenses may outweigh any particular claim and the appropriate measure of damages when interpreting statutes. There are variations in the tort law across states of a country. There are three types of torts- Intentional torts (e.g., purposefully hitting a person); negligent torts (e.g., creating an accident by failing to respect traffic laws); and recklessness torts (e.g., causing an accident by deliberately failing to obey traffic rules).

TORT LAW IN INDIA

Because tort law is comparable throughout common law jurisdictions, courts have frequently relied on case law from other common law jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, in addition to local precedent. When applying foreign precedent, however, consideration is given to local norms and conditions, as well as India’s unique constitutional framework. The legislature has also enacted legislation to address specific societal issues. Aspects of tort law have been codified, as they have in other common law countries.

The Indian Penal Code or other criminal legislation may make some behavior that gives rise to a cause of action under tort law illegal. When a tort is also a criminal offense, the aggrieved party is nevertheless entitled to seek redress under tort law. The overlap between the two domains of law is due to the different purposes they serve and the different types of remedies they offer. Tort law tries to hold a tortfeasor accountable, therefore tort proceedings are taken directly by the aggrieved party to obtain damages, but criminal law intends to punish and discourage conduct that is regarded to be against the interests of society, so criminal actions are conducted by the government.

As in other common law jurisdictions, tort law in India is primarily guided by court precedent, reinforced with statutes governing damages, codifying common law torts, and civil procedure. A tort, just like other common law jurisdictions, is a breach of a non-contractual duty that causes harm to the plaintiff and gives rise to a civil cause of action with a remedy. Because the reason for tort law is to provide a solution to the individual who has been hurt, if a remedy is not present, it will be considered that a tort has not been committed.

Despite the fact that Indian tort law is largely inherited from English law, there still are distinctions between the two systems. Indian tort law is unique in that it provides remedies for constitutional torts, which are government activities that infringe on constitutional rights, as well as an absolute liability system for enterprises involved in hazardous conduct.

So, considering that the basic rule of torts is to compensate the value corresponding to the damage or injury caused, how is such a practice calculated? In India, damages are based on the principle of restitutio ad integrum. In all circumstances, India uses a compensatory approach and argues for “full and fair compensation.”

The Indian court will seek similar cases to compare when assessing the number of damages. The multiplier approach, which awards compensation corresponded to the degree of compromise to the victim’s earning power, is used in India to calculate damages in tort cases.

The fair and just amount refers to the number of years’ purchase upon which loss of reliance is capitalized under the multiplier technique. Then, in order to account for future uncertainty, a reduction in the multiplier would also have to be made. Under the Motor Vehicle Act, the multiplier concept is enshrined in the statute for tortious proceedings that involve personal injuries that have been caused by motor vehicles. The court will, however, take inflation into consideration when determining damages.

Now, in case of calculating personal injuries, in tort lawsuits involving personal injury, Indian jurisprudence recognizes seven distinct forms of harm where damages may be awarded. These categories are known as heads of claim, and they can be separated into non-pecuniary and pecuniary, similar to the more general distinction established in other common law jurisdictions between economic and non-economic damages. The following financial grounds of claim are recognized by Indian tort law:

• Earnings are lost.
• Expenses for nursing care, hospital, and medical.
• Matrimonial prospects are dwindling.

The following non-monetary heads of claim are recognized by contemporary Indian jurisprudence:

• Loss of hope for the future.
• Loss of luxuries or the ability to enjoy life.
• Physiological function loss or impairment.
• Suffering and pain.

INTENTIONAL TORTS

Intentional torts are harms that the defendant has had the intentions to do or should have had an expectation to occur as a result of his or her action or omissions. When the defendant’s such acts or omissions were unreasonably dangerous, they are called negligent torts. Unlike deliberate and torts of negligence, torts of strict liability are unaffected by the defendant’s level of care. Instead, in these situations, the courts look to see if a specific result or injury occurred.

Some moves should be made with a reason to submit a deliberate misdeed and wrong, for example, an intention is a must for an act to be committed. It is fundamental that there is a psychological component.

The Supreme Court declared in the State of Maharashtra versus M.H. George that criminal intent is a psychological truth that must be proven even in cases involving exceptional conduct unless it is clearly ruled out or ruled out by whatever necessary inference.

That is because Mens rea, or the purpose to commit a criminal act knowing the negative consequences, is one of the most fundamental elements of a crime. Mens rea is expressed by the use of phrases like intention, malice, fraud, irresponsibility, and so on. Before committing an offense, one must be a guilty mind. Mens rea include what the person is intending to do and the refusal to perform anything that is demanded of you. The mere intent to commit a crime is illegal in and of itself. An accused will be found guilty if it is proven that he intended to commit the crime, however, the burden of proving it is on the other side, and there must be sufficient evidence to decide that intention exists.

In Ramachandra Gujar’s case, the court held that a person’s intention may only be inferred from their actions and that the likely consequences of such actions must also be considered.

NEGLIGENCE TORTS

Negligence is a type of civil tort that occurs when a person violates his duty of care to another, causing that other person to suffer harm or face legal consequences. In tort law, negligence can take the following forms, that is, a method of committing various torts such as trespassing or causing a nuisance. It can be considered as a separate tort by itself.

Negligence’s Essentials
The plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty of care that was owed to him and that this duty was breached. The nature of negligence liability is strictly legal, does not have to be moral or religious. ‘Duty’ might be seen as a responsibility to be cautious of others.

Duty Violation: The second stage is to prove that there was an actual breach of duty once the first criterion has been demonstrated. The defendant is expected to perform his responsibilities in a rational manner. The deciding factor is whether or not the defendant exercised reasonable caution.

Damage: The plaintiff must have suffered some loss as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson represents a watershed moment in the history of the tort of negligence. The plaintiff, in this case, went to a cafe to order a ginger beer, that was sealed with an opaque cork. When the contents of the bottle were emptied, a decaying body of a snail emerged. The plaintiff became ill as a result of consuming some of the tainted contents of the bottle.

The court determined that a manufacturer that manufactures a product for the end consumer on the basis that the consumer will be injured if the manufacturer fails to exercise reasonable care, does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.

RECKLESSNESS

A person’s actions might sometimes be so rash that they become the subject of a criminal investigation or a lawsuit. If a person acts recklessly with complete disregard for the safety of others and has the knowledge or should that his activities may cause injury to others, he may be held accountable for the injuries produced by his actions. It suggests the person was aware (or should have been aware) that his or her actions had the potential to damage others.

Recklessness is defined as behavior that is less than intentional but more than mere negligence. Unlike negligence, which occurs when a person takes an action with a risk that they should have known about, recklessness refers to taking a risk knowingly.

For example, the Supreme Court has defined what constitutes criminal culpability and differentiated between recklessness, negligence, and rashness. A person is said to have acted negligently when he or she accidentally commits an act or omission that would cause a breach of his or her legal duty, according to the law. A person who has done rashly when he or she is aware of the consequences but stupidly believes that they will not materialize as a result of his or her actions. A careless person is aware of the repercussions yet is unconcerned about whether or not they are the result of his or her actions. ‘Any behavior that is not adequate to recklessness and wilful wrongdoing shall not be subject to criminal prosecution,’ the Court stated in Poonam Verma VS. Ashwin Patel.

Many risky activities are prohibited by state law, and irresponsible actors are viewed as social risks because they jeopardize the safety of others. A person who has been hurt as a result of another’s negligence may be entitled to compensation for medical bills, rehabilitation, pain, lost wages, and suffering. Furthermore, recklessness may allow compensation from those who are normally free from liability for simple negligence, like government employees and health care providers.

Recklessness is a subjective as well as objectively defined state of mind. There are two kinds of irresponsible behavior. The first examines what the performer knew or was thought to be thinking at the time of the act (subjective test). The second evaluates what a person with a reasonable mind in the defendant’s circumstances would have believed (objective test). In all cases, the question is whether the person was aware (or should have been aware) that his acts could injure someone else.

It is dangerous, for example, for a car driver to purposely cross a highway in violation of a stop sign if traffic is approaching from both directions. In comparison, he does not stop since his attention is diverted and he is unaware that he is approaching the crossing which otherwise would be considered negligent.

CONCLUSION

Tort law allows for not only full recompense for victims, but also for the revelation of wrongdoing and the discouragement of malicious or negligent acts. A verdict of the court can be spread all over the country, if not the world, and can result in harmful practices being changed or stopped. Tort law has progressed to level the playing field, having roots in English common law. It empowers those without resources to compete with anyone on the globe, not just direct action. Any multi-billion-dollar enterprise or overreaching government agency. Besides only compensating an injured sufferer, tort law offers further advantages. Automobiles, the roads, toys, and foods are safer.

Written by Tingjin Marak, a student at Ajeenkya DY Patil University, Pune.

INTRODUCTION

Any claim made in the suit flows from the cause of action, and claims made must be with respect to the cause of action from which they derive. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr., the Supreme Court stated that “Cause of Action” refers to the conditions that constitute a violation of a right or an urgent cause for a reaction in a limited sense. Due to the facts or circumstances, several causes of action may arise in some situations. Contractual actions, statutory causes of action, and torts including assault, battery, invasion of privacy, and defamation are only a few examples.

CAUSE OF ACTION, SECTION 20, CPC

“Cause of Action” as defined by section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, is any fact that must be proven in support of the right to obtain a judgment. The term Cause of Action is mentioned in the CPC in various places. Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order II Rule 2, it is stated that a plaint must mention the cause of action if it is to be instituted as a suit. Order VII Rule 1 reaffirms the same. Further, Order I Rule 8 states in the explanation that the parties represented in the litigation do not have to have the same cause of action as the person representing them and Order II Rule 7 explains in detail whether an objection to misjoinder of the cause of action should be submitted before the matter appears in the suit if such a complaint is valued at that time.

As stated at the outset, a Cause of Action is not only an important part of a Civil Action, but it is also the cause for the civil suit’s existence. It establishes the disputed topic or the genuine nature of the parties’ relationship. If there is no cause of action, there will be no litigation. Although, inside the CPC, the cause of action has yet to be defined.

PURPOSE OF ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC provides litigants with the option of seeking an independent and special remedy, allowing courts to dismiss a suit at the preliminary stage without recording evidence and proceeding to trial based on the evidence presented if they are satisfied that the action should be dismissed on any of the grounds outlined in this provision.

In the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali¹, the SC reviewed several precedents on the underlying goal of O7 R 11 while dealing with the appeal before it. The court would not allow protraction of the proceedings if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint or if the suit is precluded by limitation. In this instance, it would be important to put an end to the phony litigation to avoid wasting more judicial time. It opined, citing Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi², that the main aim of conferring such powers under O7 R 11 is to ensure that useless and bound to prove futile litigation should not be allowed to consume the time of the courts and exercise the mind of the respondent.

The Supreme Court went on to say that while considering a motion to dismiss a plaint, courts should look at the plaint’s averments in light of the documents relied on to determine if they reveal a cause of action. In this regard, it was also stated that courts would have to disregard the defendant’s pleadings in the written statement and application for dismissal of the plaint on merit when making such a conclusion. As a result, the Supreme Court stated that when deciding any application submitted under O 7 R11, the courts should limit themselves to the plaint and not delve into the specific facts outlined in the written statement or even the O7 R 11 application.

CASE LAWS

Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Srikant Gupta and Ors.³
In this case, an agreement was composed in Bhilai for the dissolution of the partnership and distribution of partnership assets. The Supreme Court held that the agreement was void and had to be ignored at the threshold to save the time of the court and to safeguard the parties from any harm. Further, it held that Chandigarh Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit as part of the cause of action that arose at Mandsaur.

Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai and Ors.⁴
According to the Supreme Court, the cause of action encompasses those circumstances that, if present, would enable the plaintiff to provide support for his entitlement to a court judgment. That is, a set of facts that the plaintiff will use to substantiate his or her case.

M/S South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. vs M/S Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt.⁵
The Supreme Court ruled that a cause of action is made up of a group of circumstances that constitute grounds for bringing a civil action for redress in a court of law. In other words, it’s a series of circumstances that gives the plaintiff the right to sue the defendant under the legislation that applies to them. The court further stated that a cause of action must include any conduct committed by the defendant because, without one, no cause of action will likely develop.

Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh⁶
In this case, the cause of action arose when the injured party disputed the gift deed after approximately 22 years from the date of the equivalent’s execution. The offended party in the situation has contested the gift deed, claiming that it is a garish one that is therefore not authoritative. After hearing both sides’ perspectives on the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the Statute of Limitations indisputably bars this lawsuit. Furthermore, the plaint should be dismissed according to CPC Order VII Rule 11.

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association vs Union of India & Ors.⁷
In this case, the court held that every fact that must be proved, as opposed to any piece of evidence needed to prove each fact, must have been mentioned the essential element of ’cause of action’ according to the Rajasthan High Court. In each circumstance, the location of the cause of action must be determined.

As a result, the court will only be justified in dismissing the plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action if it considers the claims in the plaint and decides that they do not reveal any cause of action, assuming the allegations are true. However, if the court finds that there is no cause of action for the suit after reviewing all evidence and materials after the trial, the suit is dismissed rather than the plaint rejected.

OBSERVATIONS

The plaintiff’s lawsuit may be dismissed at the outset if the cause of action is not adequately established just like in the recent case. In such a case, no court proceedings will be continued in the first place to save the time of the court and to prevent such malice. Further, the claims must be backed up by facts, law, and a conclusion drawn from the law’s application to the facts.

A statement of facts in a battery case, for example, might be “While walking through XYZ Store, the plaintiff was tackled by the defendant, a store security guard, who knocked him to the ground and held him there by kneeling on her back and holding his arms behind him, while screaming in his ear to open his bag. The plaintiff suffered injuries to her head, chest, shoulders, neck, and back as a result of these actions.”

However, the facts or circumstances that lead to a person seeking judicial redress may give rise to multiple causes of action. In the previous case, the plaintiff could allege assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Civil Rights.

CONCLUSION

As for this regulation, the term “cause of action” refers to the key facts that make up the right and its infringement, which authorizes a person to sue the wrongdoer, defaulter, or anyone else who is liable for it.

However, Rule 6 of Order II of CPC states that the court may order separate trials if it appears to the court that joining causes of action in one complaint will embarrass or delay the trial or be otherwise inconvenient. It can be analyzed from the above-stated matter that a lawsuit can be dismissed if the cause of action is missing from the complaint. It is not enough to just assert that specific events or facts occurred that entitle the plaintiff to relief; the complaint must also include all of the elements of each cause of action in detail. However, if an offended party excludes any relief to which he is entitled to suit except when approved by the Court, he will not be granted such assistance later. The Court may award aid on reasons other than those specified in the plaint in exceptional situations. The aid requested by the injured party or the defendant might be broad or narrow.

Citations:

1. 2020 SCCOnline SC 562
2. 1986 AIR 1253, 1986 SCR (2) 782
3. (1993) 104 PLR 621
4. 1994 SCC (6) 322, JT 1994 (6) 89
5. 1996 SCC (3) 443, JT 1996 (3) 656
6. AIR 2019 SC 1430
7. AIR 2001 SC 416

Written by Hemant Bohra student at School of Law, Lovely Professional University, Punjab.

Introduction

Any civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy is referred to as a tort. Torts compensate people and property for injuries caused by someone else’s negligence. Essentially implying, a tort is a civil wrong independent of a contract where the only remedy available is in the form of compensation. A tort is the French version of the English word “wrong” as well as the Roman law term “delict.” The term tort comes from the Latin word “tortum,” which denotes “twisted, crooked, or incorrect.” plays a role in disciplining organizations and individuals who cause harm to others through reckless and negligent behavior. The fundamental principle of tort law is Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium. The objective of tort is to recompense the victim whose legal right has been infringed or violated by the person who caused the damages in the first place, as well as to deter them from repeating the same breach in the future. In India, tort law is a relatively young common law development reinforced by codifying statutes, including damages statutes. Tort first appeared in India, which is still a developing country, with the establishment of British India. Following independence, India embraced British laws, including the distorted idea of tort law. While India generally takes the same strategy as the United Kingdom approach, there are some variances that could show judicial intervention, causing controversy. Because of conflicts about who should carry the economic burden of an accident and what damage should be compensable, there has always been concern over whether tort law should be restricted. Although statutes such as the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, and the Environment Protection Act of 1986 were enacted to establish tort liability in India, there is no official codification or formal legislation of tort law in our country. It has also been held that section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows the civil court to try all civil matters, implicitly confers jurisdiction to apply tort law as a matter of justice, equity, and good conscience. As a result, the court can use its inherent powers under section 9 to expand this area of liability.

Law of Torts in Present Scenerio

A Brief Outline

COVID-19’s spread has clearly been one of the most challenging moments for the judiciary all over the world for administering justice. The judiciary in India, the world’s largest democracy, has always been challenged by the huge amount of litigation cases that come before courts every day. An Indian court can assume jurisdiction by being the site where the cause of action, the tort; occurred, according to India’s conflict of law provisions, which are yet uncodified. Analyzing the situation in other nations, India considered its own capacity to avert a pandemic, taking into account the limited resources available in a country with an inadequate health infrastructure.

With the current persistent provisions, the plaintiff(s) filing a lawsuit in an Indian court would have the onus of responsibility to prove that the Chinese government’s concealment of the virus’s nature and failure to take appropriate measures to contain it, creating an actionable act under both Chinese and Indian law, and thus the suit will be governed concurrently by both the Chinese and Indian tort law.

According to the House of Lords’ interpretation of common law principles, negligence is defined as a failure to exert the degree of care that should have been undertaken by the doer. As stated in Rajkot Municipal Corpn. vs. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, (1992 ACJ 792), Indian tort law is based on common law principles as;

1. that the defendant owed the plaintiff a “legal” obligation of duty and care
2. that the defendant breached this duty
3. the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the defendant’s breach

The Liability of Spread of Virus

China’s ‘responsibility of care’ to India and its residents can be traced back to the relevant sections of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Health Regulations, 2005. This legal obligation to non-nationals can be extended to include a duty to other countries and their citizens. China has breached its duty of care to the countries by failing to notify the World Health Organization in accordance with the International Health Regulations of 2005 in a timely manner despite the given signs of a public health issue and the whistleblower being subjected to traumatic measures for threatening the name of the country in an international context.

“Using a constructive knowledge criterion holds liable individuals who actively avoid knowledge of infection even when suffering apparent indications of a disease,” it was determined in the case of Endres v. Endres. California’s courts had imposed culpability in another case, Doe v. Roe, even when the person spreading the disease believed they were not infected.

Although it has not been resolved whether a cause of action for negligently disseminating COVID-19 can exist, it appears that the individuals should be held accountable because they knew or should have known that they were carriers of the virus; those people had an obligation to avoid COVID-19 transmission and thus contain the spread ensuring the right to live of other individuals.

The Liability to ensure the public health

Suits have already been brought against cruise ship operators, nursing homes, and entertainment venues, alleging that someone wrongfully exposed me/my loved ones to COVID-19, and we/they became infected/died as a result. It may be simple to demonstrate causation in some cases (for example, some who are infected by the virus were in very closed locations such as nursing homes given the knowledge about incubation periods, it is reasonable to infer that they caught the coronavirus in that location). While causation may be simple to establish, for example, prisoners with coronavirus definitely caught the disease inside prisons, there may be no negligence with the institutions’ poor health and medical infrastructure.

Doctors who prescribe drugs to COVID-19 patients that the Regulatory Authority has approved for other applications should be insulated from liability by legislation if the drugs don’t work, as long as scientific evidence supports their usage for this purpose. Liability considerations have delayed the development of new vaccinations in the past, as seen by outbreaks of smallpox and other influenzas. In 1976, when President Gerald Ford launched an ambitious effort to immunize millions of people against a swine flu outbreak, insurers and manufacturers refused. Liability shields have allowed businesses to manufacture effective therapies swiftly while avoiding legal repercussions. However, taking complete responsibility for highly new items that are developed and licensed at breakneck speed is a dangerous endeavor for countries.

Although governments’ tortious culpability should be assimilated to that of citizens, ‘there are limits to the extent to which that is achievable because governments’ character and functions differ from those of individuals. Assessing the reasonableness or unreasonableness of government policy decisions is an unsuitable matter for judicial consideration in determining government tort liability. Considerations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and government culpability in negligence might include the potential of harm being caused to the public and the economic loss sustained as a result of putting in place contagion-control procedures.

Medical Negligence

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab Appeal (Crl.) 144-145 of 2004 opined that;

Negligence is defined as a breach of duty caused by the failure to do something that a prudent and reasonable person would do, or by doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do, based on the principles that normally govern the conduct of human affairs.

Mismanagement, denial of proper care and medical help to patients, non-observance of safety rules have all been reported, putting the lives of both healthcare personnel and patients in jeopardy. These difficulties raise the issue of medical negligence reflecting the tortious liability. In light of the harsh conditions in which doctors work, there are suggestions that medical practitioners be temporarily exempt from liability for medical malpractice. Another intriguing viewpoint is to look into alternative dispute resolution processes in which the patient can be reimbursed financially to the degree possible.

Conclusion

Rather than basing our judicial thought on English laws, we need to develop new principles and norms that effectively address the difficulties of India thus indicating a need for our own jurisprudence. The spread of COVID-19 has undoubtedly been one of the most difficult times for humanity to accept, and because the number of cases is alarmingly high with various mutant variants taking a spread, it is the responsibility of each and every individual to act responsibly with the negligent people, as well as the ruling machinery, who must be held accountable for their actions. With one recent instance of the case of Johnsons & Johnsons Talc Powder Cancer Case in tort law where 22 women in the US state of Mississippi claimed to have developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson’s talcum powder, and the firm granted them $3.6 billion amplifies the importance of tort jurisprudential evolution in India where the aggrieved would have a justified resort to resolve the grievances.

This article is authored by Aathira Pillai a 5th year BLS LLB student of Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Law.

LATEST POSTS

• Job opportunity at EXO Edge, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Vishwas Advisors, Kalyan, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Kulfi Collective, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!
• Job opportunity at The Neotia University, Diamond Harbour, West Bengal, India: Apply Now !!
• Job opportunity at Morgan Stanley, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at VISA INTELLIGENCE CONSULTANCY LLP, New Delhi, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!  
• Job opportunity at Amazon Web Services (AWS), Gurugram, Haryana, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Stelcore Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Zscaler, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Irish Expert, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at UnitedLex · Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Apply Now!
• Internship opportunity at Vineforce · Nabha, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!

---

• CLAT-Peeps! (10)
  • Current Affairs (2)
• competitions (132)
• Conferences and Seminars (201)
  • Webinar (1)
• Course and Workshops (107)
• Debates (46)
• Eassy Competitions (69)
• Fellowships & Scholarships (56)
• Guest Blogs (6)
• important (29)
• Internships and Jobs (2,317)
• interviews (8)
• moot court (180)
• Opportuintes (2,731)
  • Job Opportunity (1,191)
• opportunity (2,559)
  • Call for papers (475)
  • Quizes,fests and others (298)
  • Work Opportunity (836)
• Our Blog (1,049)
  • Administrative Law (17)
  • ADR (13)
  • Arms Act (2)
  • Case Analysis (205)
  • Company law (36)
  • Constitutional Law (143)
  • Consumer Protection Act (17)
  • Contract Law (62)
  • CPC (10)
  • Criminal Law (140)
  • Cyber Law (13)
  • Environmental Laws (30)
  • Evidence Act (20)
  • Family Law (12)
  • General (205)
  • International Humanitarian Law (8)
  • International law (23)
  • IPR (10)
  • Jurisprudence (13)
  • labor laws (7)
  • Maritime Laws (1)
  • Partnership Act (2)
  • personal law (33)
  • Taxation (10)
  • Tort (64)
  • Transfer of Property (2)
• Our Services (11)
  • career advice (2)
  • others (6)
• Top Stories (524)
• Uncategorized (720)

ARCHIVES

• November 2023 (26)
• October 2023 (1)
• September 2023 (5)
• August 2023 (2)
• July 2023 (25)
• June 2023 (23)
• May 2023 (40)
• April 2023 (136)
• March 2023 (124)
• February 2023 (138)
• January 2023 (61)
• December 2022 (39)
• November 2022 (103)
• October 2022 (178)
• September 2022 (342)
• August 2022 (240)
• July 2022 (273)
• June 2022 (196)
• May 2022 (27)
• April 2022 (99)
• March 2022 (190)
• February 2022 (196)
• January 2022 (193)
• December 2021 (152)
• November 2021 (203)
• October 2021 (189)
• September 2021 (177)
• August 2021 (192)
• July 2021 (393)
• June 2021 (293)
• May 2021 (179)
• April 2021 (61)
• March 2021 (46)
• February 2021 (56)
• January 2021 (63)
• December 2020 (86)
• November 2020 (94)
• October 2020 (146)
• September 2020 (220)
• August 2020 (173)
• July 2020 (165)
• June 2020 (119)
• May 2020 (136)
• April 2020 (7)
• February 2020 (37)
• January 2020 (3)
• November 2019 (1)