Question

PRINCIPLE: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the rights of another person in not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of defendant's own lawful rights, no action should lie.
FACTS: There was an estbalished school ('ES') in a particular locality. Subsequently, a new school ('NS') was set up in the same locality, which charged lower fee on account of which people started patronising the new school. Because of the competition 'ES' had to reduce its fees. 'ES' filed a case against 'NS' saying that 'NS' had caused it ('ES') financial loss and thus, claimed compensation.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

• A. Since no legal right of 'ES' had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.
• B. Since damage is caused to 'ES', therefore, it should be awarded compensation.
• C. 'ES' should be awarded compensation, as opening of school in competition is not good.
• D. No compensation could be granted, as reduction in fees is good for the public.

Answer 1

Answer: (A)

Since no legal right of 'ES' had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.

The maxim 'Damnum sine injuria' means that "no action will lie if there is actual loss or damage but there has been no infringement of legal right". Where there has been no infringement of any legal right, the mere fact of harm or loss will not render such act or omission actionable although the loss may be substantial or even irreparable. This maxim has been propounded in the above mentioned case law as no legal right of 'ES' was violated. Hence, no compensation should be granted.