SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)

Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC

Seat No. (In Figures) :- 488513

Seat No. (In Words) :- four lakh eighty-eight thousand five hundred thirteen.

PRN :- 20010422015

Programme :- BBA LLB Semester :- 1st

Course :- Law Of Torts

INSTRUCTIONS

a. Please read the instructions on the question paper carefully.

b. The Students can either type the answers in the answer booklet and submit it in ms-word format
or manually write the answers in the answer booklet in clear and legible handwriting and share
the scanned copy of the answer booklet in pdf format as a single file.
c. Please fill in the above details carefully and attach it as the first page of your submission.
d. The submitted answers should not be copied from each other or from Internet sources.

Q1a.
Section 140 which is liability without fault is applied here. Here the claimant will be compensated without
proving anything. Here the defendant can not ask for the defense of the contributory negligence.
- According to section 140 (1) where death of disablement of the person has resulted from motor
vehicle. The owners of the vehicle will be jointly liable, to pay compensation.
- Composite negligence means : refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a
person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the
person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers.
- Here the claimant shall not be requiring to plead the death or disablement.
- According to the section and explanations above , the compensation for act in respect of the death of
that person will be 50,000 and in case of the disablement it will be 25,000.
- The claim according to section 140 (4)would not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, or
default.
- The compensation and liability will be decided under the section 140.
- Here the claimant who is injured would not be required to plead that the disablement or death has been
caused due to any negligence.
 SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC

- Under section 140 (5) this explains regarding the death or bodily injured, he would also be liable to
pay compensation any other law for the time being in the form.
- In this case the defendant will be liable to pay the compensation to his legal hires or the representative
as it is a case of death or permanent disablement.
- So here the person will be liable to pay the compensation under the section 140 of the motor vehicle
act, and the claimant would not be required to prove any kind of negligence and default.
- Under section 163 A: special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.
A specific table has been provided for calculating the amount of compensation for claiming under
section 163 A of motor vehicle act.
- The amount of compensation will be decided under section 140 and 163A .
- The claimant is free to ask for or claim any amount under section 163A if the claimant thinks that the
amount which is paid to him is not according to his satisfaction to his injury or any kind of damage.

Q2b.
Volente non fit injuria –
Volenti non fit injuria is one of the defenses under the law of torts in which the person who has committed a
wrong is exempted from liability because the victim of such a wrong gives his consent to the commission of
such an act and such a consent must be free for the successful application of this defense in a case.

- Here the defense raised by the company will be accepted. Here lady freely consented to act because she
was aware of all the consensus of the act, passing through the tunnel and still prefer to go through
- The defendant was aware that local people using tunnel and he had taken responsible care by instructing
his driver.
- The driver also acted carefully so that he can plead for the defense under volente non fit injuria.
- The injury which the lady sustained was because of her direct consequences by her own act. She herself
exposed to the harm which she suffered and should have been more careful and hence the defendant
could successfully use the claim.

DEFENSE CAN NOT BE USED –

- This maxim would not be having any validity against an action, based on a breach of statutory duty.
- Thus, there is no answer which the work man can give against his employer for injury caused through a
breach by the employer of a duty imposed upon him.
- 153 But where the negligence or breach of statutory duty is on the part of an employee of the plaintiff
who knowingly accepts the risk flowing from such breach and the employer-defendant is not guilty of
negligence or breach of statutory duty, the defense of volente non fit injuria is available to the
defendant. 154 (3) The maxim does not apply where the plaintiff has, under an exigency caused by the
defendant's wrongful misconduct, consciously and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, to rescue
another from imminent danger of
-
- personal injury or death, whether the person endangered is one to whom he owes a duty of protection,
as a member of his family, or is a mere stranger to whom he owes no such special duty. 15The rescuer
will not be deprived of his remedy merely because the risk which he runs is not the same as that run
 SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC

by the person whom he rescues. 15€This principle, which has been based upon a weight of authority
in America, has now been adopted by the Court of Appeal in

- England. But where there is no need to take any risk, the person suffering harm in doing so cannot
recover. 157 (4) Generally the maxim does not apply to cases of negligence, to cover a case of
negligence the defense on the basis of the maxim must be based on implied agreement whether
amounting to contract or not.

- only when the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk
impliedly agreed to incur it and to wane any claim for injury. Thus, there are several cases where the
driver of a vehicle gives a passenger a lift and the same time, gives him reasonable notice that he rides at
his own risk.

Q3b.
Definition according to Winfield- basically , tortious liability arises from the breach of the duty which is
primarily fixed by law.
- This duty is towards person generally, and the breach is end by unliquidated damages.
Dr. Winfield-
- The category of torts never closes there is always new tort that arises from the new tort being
included. Illustrating this point further Winfield says that if I injure my neighbor, he can sue me in tort
whether the wrong happens in any kind of like assault battery etc. or whether it has no specific
nomenclature.
I shall be liable if I haven’t proven myself for the justification of the act.
- This theory is supported by various judges because it gives them scope to judge to exercise the
description on the basis of law because this is the gist of the basis of the law. As it is based on the
discretionary power only.
- Tort is not limited to the hole only, if the men increase in number day by day the injuries will also
increase day by day. The men who are Injured has the right to get compensated, for every legal injury
and damage.
- There is a need to recognize each harmful act, the tort to which the exception lies, there should not be
legal justification of it. This is the second theory defined by the Winfield.
Q3a.
The journey of the concept of strict liability was started from being a “No Fault liability” where the
defendant was held liable even when there is no fault on his part. But with the change of time and
circumstances, the applicability of this principle was needed to be amended according to the needs of the
people because in many of the cases, where the plaintiff was worth compensation for his damages, was
not granted compensation on the basis of the rule of strict liability. Since the law needs to be amended
with the evolution, the concept of absolute liability was introduced with no exceptions or defenses i.e.
“No Liability” with regards to the use of an inherently dangerous substance in industries.
 SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC

No fault liability-
The rule of no-fault liability also known as the strict liability, which means that the individual might have
the liability without any fault. The person in this case may not have done any harmful or negligent act,
however the rules claim for him is compensation.
- A person who is in danger of damage from a building is entitled to call on the owner to take the
necessary precautions to prevent the danger, and if the owner fails to take such precautions, to
obtain an order from the court authorizing him to take the necessary precautions himself at the cost
of the owner".
- There are some exceptions to this-
- Act of god
- Act of third party
- Plaintiffs own fault
- Statutory authority
- Right of legitimate defense

Absolute liability-
when we remove the exceptions and defense from the strict liability it becomes absolute laicity.

The concept of absolute liability evolved in India after the case of M.C Mehta vs Union of
India[1] famously known as Oleum Gas Leak case. This is one of the historic cases in
the Indian Judiciary. The case of M.C Mehta is based on the principle of strict liability but
with no exception were given and the individual is made absolutely liable for his acts.
- It is based under this principle that the defendant won’t be allowed to plead defense if
he/she was at fault as it was laid down in Ryland vs Fletcher case. After the Bhopal gas
leak case many people lost their lives and are suffering from some of the fatal diseases
through the generation and because of this there was an urgent need to develop a rule
under strict liability which had no exceptions available to the defendant to escape from
the liability.

Conclusion- so here we can conclude that in strict/no fault liability- if the person has no
fault then also, he has to pay the compensation and the same goes for the absolute
liability if the person has no fault, he has to pay the compensation for the same.
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
(Established Under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)
Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4)| Awarded Category – I by UGC