Question

Principle: Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm and may recover damages (compensation).

Facts: 'A’ was a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take A's vote. Inspite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom 'A' wanted to vote, won the election. But, 'A' brought an action for damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?

Options

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

• Since, legal right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, compensation should be granted

• No, compensation could be granted, as 'A' had suffered no loss as his candidate won the election.

• Since, no fundamental right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, as such no compensation could be granted

Answer 1

Since, legal right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, compensation should be granted

Explanation:

According to the Law of Torts, there is a legal maxim  'injuria sine damnum' which means whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual harm and may recover damages. It is sufficient to show that there is a violation of a legal right and the law will presume damage.   
In the given scenario, though the candidate for whom A wanted to vote for won the election, but A  will succeed in his action for damages because there is a violation of his legal right.