LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

LAW OF TORTS
REMEDIES TO THE TORTS (DAMAGES ,
SPECIFIC RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY)

SUBMITTED BY:
AAKASH & ANSHUMAAN
B.A.L.L.B. 1st SEM.

SUBMITTED TO:
MR.AMIT BHASKAR
STAFF FACUTLY (LAW OF

TORTS)

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

Certificate
This is to certify that this project An overview on Remedies in Torts (Damages,
Restitution of Property) made by Aakash Bamal & Anshumaan Arya, B.A.LL.B.
1st Sem. This project is totally made by us and not copied from anywhere. If any
plagiarism find by you, you can cancel us project.

Thank You !!
Aakash Bamal & Anshumaan Arya

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

Acknowledgement
This is to thank every people who helped us while doing this project . We want to
thanks Mr. Amit Bhaskar , whose classes helped me a lot. College library also
helped us with the book and the sites. We also want to thanks our seniors and
friends who helped us a lot .

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

Table of Contents
Introduction

4-

5
Remedy

Types of Remedies

6-7

Remdy of Torts

Nature in Remedies

Damages

Contemptuous, Nominal, Ordinary and Exemplary Damages

9-

10
General and Special Damages

11

Prospective and Continuing Damages

11-

12
Damage for Mental Suffering and Psychiatric injury or Nervous Shock

12-

13
Damages in an action for personal injuries

13

Non-Pecuniary Loss, Pecuniary Loss

13-

15
Damages for unwanted pregnancy resulting from medical negligence
Injury to Property

15
15-

16
Remoteness of Damages

16-

18
Interim Damages

18-

19
Conclusion

20
4

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

Restitution of Property

21-

23
Bibliography

24

Introduction
The word tort has been derived from the Latin term tortum which means to
twist. It includes that conduct which is not straight or lawful, but, on the other
hand, twisted, crook door unlawful. It is equivalent to the English term wrong.
The law imposes a duty to respect the legal rights vested in the members of the
society and the person making a breach of that duty is said to have done the
wrongful act. Tort is a breach of that duty recognised under the law of torts.
Violation of a duty not to interfere with the possession of land of another person
result in the tort of trespass to land and the violation of a duty not to defraud
another results in the tort of deceit. Tortious Liability arises from the breach of a
duty primarily fixed by the law : this duty is towards persons generally and its
breach is redress by an action for un liquidated damages. Win field. Tort is a
civil wrong, and secondly every civil wrong is not a tort. Tort is a civil wrong
which is redress by an action for un liquidated damages and which is other than a
mere breach of contract or breach of trust.1. Tort is a civil wrong Tort belongs to
the category of civil wrongs. The basic nature of civil wrongs is different from a
criminal wrong. In the case of a civil wrong, the injured party, i.e., the plaintiff
5

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

institutes civil proceedings against the wrongdoers, i.e., the defendant. In such a
case, the main remedy is damages. The plaintiff is compensated by the defendant
for the injury caused to him by the defendant. In the case of a criminal wrong, on
the other hand, the criminal proceedings against the accused are brought by the
State. Moreover, in the case of a criminal wrong, the individual, who is the victim
of the crime, i.e., the sufferer, is not compensated. Justice is administered by
punishing the wrongdoer in such a case.2. Tort is other than a mere breach of
contract or breach of trust Tort is that civil wrong which is not exclusively any
other kind of civil wrong. If we find that the only wrong is a mere breach of
contract or breach of trust, then obviously it would not be a tort. Thus, if a person
agrees to purchase a radio set and there after does not full fill his obligation, the
wrong will be a mere breach of contract. It is only by the process of elimination
that we may be able to know whether the wrong is a tort or not. First, we have to
see whether the wrong is civil or criminal wrong; if it is a civil wrong it has to be
further seen if it is exclusively belongs to another recognized category of civil
wrongs, like breach of contract or breach of trust. If it is found that it is neither a
mere breach of contract nor any other civil wrongs, then we can say that the
wrong is a tort. Tort is redress by an action for un liquidated damages . Damages is
the most important remedy for a tort. After the wrong has been committed,
generally it is the money compensation which may satisfy the injured party. After
the commission of the wrong, it is generally not possible to undo the harm which
has already been caused. If, for example, the reputation of a person has been
injured, the original position cannot be restored back. The only thing which can be
done in such a case is to see what is the money equivalent to the harm by way of
defamation and the sum so arrived at is asked to be paid by the defendant to the
plaintiff. Damages in the case of a tort are un liquidated. Liquidated damages
6

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

means such compensation which has been previously determined or agreed to by

the parties. When the compensation has not been so determined but the
determination of the same is left to the discretion of the court, the damages are
said to be un liquidated. 1Law of Torts, Dr. R.K. Bangia ,Allahabad Law Agency ,
(Twenty-Third Edition- 2013) , pg. no. 3-13.

Remedy
The manner in which a right is enforced or satisfied by a court when some harm or injury,
recognized by society as a wrongful act, is inflicted upon an individual.
The law of remedies is concerned with the character and extent of relief to which an individual
who has brought a legal action is entitled once the appropriate court procedure has been
followed, and the individual has established that he or she has a substantive right that has been
in fringed by the defendant.

Categorized according to their purpose, the four basic types of judicial remedies are;
(1) Damages;
(2) Restitution;
(3) Coercive remedies;
(4) Declaratory remedies.
(1)
The remedy of damages is generally intended to compensate the injured party for any harm he o
r
Damages. Money

she has suffered. This kind of damages is ordinarily known as Compensatory

is substituted for that which the plaintiff has lost or suffered. Nominal

damages, generally a few

7

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

cents or one dollar, are awarded to protect a right of a plaintiff even though he or she has
suffered no actual harm. The theory underlying the award of Punitive
Damages is different since
they are imposed upon the defendant in order to deter or punish him or her, rather than to
compensate the plaintiff.
(2)
The remedy of restitution is designed to restore the plaintiff to the position he or she occupied
before his or her rights were violated. It is ordinarily measured by the defendant's gains,

as

opposed to the plaintiff's losses, in order to prevent the defendant from being unjustly enriched
by
the wrong. The remedy of restitution can result in either a pecuniary recovery or in the recovery
of property.
(3)
Coercive remedies are orders by the court to force the defendant to do, or to refrain from doing,
something to the plaintiff. An Injunction backed by the Contempt power is one kind of coerciv
e
remedy. When issuing this type of remedy, the court commands the defendant to act, or to refrai
n
from acting, in a certain way. In the event that the defendant willfully disobeys, he or she might
be

jailed, fined, or otherwise punished for contempt. A decree for Specific

Performance commands
the defendant to perform his or her part of a contract after a breach thereof has been established.
It is issued only in cases where the subject matter of a contract is unique.
(4)
Declaratory remedies are sought when a plaintiff wishes to be made aware of what the law is,
what it means, or whether or not it is constitutional, so that he or she will be able to take
appropriate action. The main purpose of this kind of remedy is to determine an individual's right
s in a particular situation.

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

Remedies in Torts
Notes adapted from Michael A. Jones, Textbook on Torts, Seventh Edition, 2000.

The two principal remedies available to the victim of a tort are damages to compensate for the
harm he has suffered and, where appropriate, an injunction to prevent future harm. Damages is
the predominant remedy. Certain forms of self-help, such as abatement of a nuisance or self defence can be regarded as remedies, but the courts do not encourage this.

Nature of Remedies
Remedies are also categorized as equitable or legal in nature.

Monetary damages awarded to a plaintiff because they adequately compensate him or her for th
e loss are considered a legal remedy. An equitable remedy is one in which a recovery of money
would be an inadequate form of relief.

Courts design equitable remedies to do justice in specific situations where money does not
provide complete relief to individuals who have been injured. Injunctions, decrees of specific
performance, declaratory judgments, and constructive trusts are typical examples of some kinds
of equitable remedies. Restitution is regarded as either a legal or equitable remedy, depending
upon the nature of the property restored.

The distinction between legal and equitable remedies originally came about because courts of
law only had the power to grant legal remedies, whereas courts of Equity granted equitable
remedies to do justice in situations where money would be inadequate relief. The courts of law
and the courts of equity have merged, but the distinction still has some importance because in a
number of courts, a trial by jury is either granted or refused, according to whether the remedy

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

sought is legal or equitable. When a legal remedy is sought, the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial
, but this is not true when an equitable remedy is requested.
Sometimes a plaintiff might have both legal and equitable remedies available for the redress of
personal grievances. In such a case, a plaintiff might have to exercise an Election of Remedies.

Damages
In a suit for damages in a tort case, the Court awards pecuniary compensation to the plaintiff or
the injury or damage caused to him by the wrongful act of the defendant. After it is proved that
the defendant committed a wrongful act, the plaintiff would be entitled to compensation, may be
nominal, though he does not prove any specific damage or injury resulting to him, in cases
where the tort is actionable per se. But even in these cases when specific damage is alleged and
in all other cases, where tort is not actionable per se, and it becomes the duty of the plaintiff to
allege the damage resulting from the wrongful act for which he claims damages, the Courts
enquiry resolves in deciding three questions : (1) Was the damage alleged caused by the
defendants wrongful act ? (2) Was it remote ? (3) What is the monetary compensation for the
damage ? If the damage alleged was not caused by the defendants wrongful act the question of
its remoteness will not arise. In deciding the question whether the damage was caused by the
wrongful act, the generally accepted test is known as but for test. This means that if the
damage would not have resulted but for the defendants wrongful act, it would be taken to have
been caused by the wrongful act. it means that the defendants wrongful act is not a cause of the
damage if the same would have happened just the same, wrongful act or no wrongful act. Thus
when a doctor is negligent in failing to see and examine a patient and give him the proper
treatment, the claim will still fail if it is shown on evidence that the patient would have died of
10

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

poisoning even if he had been treated with all due care. The doctors negligence in such cases is
not the cause of the patients death.

Types of Damages :
a. Contemptuous Damages, Nominal Damages, Ordinary Damages and
Exemplary Damages :
Contemptuous Damages are awarded when it is considered that an action should never have
been brought. When the plaintiff has technically a legal claim but there is no moral justification
for it or he morally deserved what the defendant did to him, the Court may award half penny or
a paisa showing its disapproval of the conduct of the plaintiff.
Nominal Damages are awarded where the purpose of the action is merely to establish a right no
substantial harm or loss having been suffered, for example, in cases of infringement of absolute
rights of personal security (e.g. assault) and property (e.g. bare trespass, invasion of a right of
easement, etc.). Nominal damages are so called because they bear no relation even to the cost
and trouble of suing, and the sum awarded is so small that it may be said to have no existence in
point quantity, e.g. one anna , one shilling. But small damages are not necessarily nominal
damages. An award of nominal damages implies no censure of the plaintiffs conduct in
bringing the suit.
Ordinary Damages are awarded where it is necessary to compensate the plaintiff fairly for the
injury he has in fact sustained. These are also called compensatory damages. Whatever sum is
awarded, whether large or small, must afford a fair measure of compensation to the plaintiff
with the reference to the actual harm sustained by him. The law does not aim at restitution but
compensation, and the true test is, what sum would afford, under the circumstances of the
particular case, a fair trial and reasonable compensation to the party wronged for the injury done
to him, the plaintiffs own estimate being regarded as the maximum limit. The measure of
reparation or damages for any injury should be assessed as nearly as possible at a sum of money
11

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

which would put the injured party in the same position he would have been in if he would not
have sustained the injury. For example, where a surveyor negligently surveyed a property which
the plaintiff purchased the proper measure of damages is the amount of money which will put
the plaintiff into as good a position as if the surveying contract had been properly fulfilled.
Exemplary Damages are awarded not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant
and to deter him from similar conduct in future. The House of Lords has ruled that exemplary
damages can be allowed in three categories of cases. The first category is oppressive, arbitrary
or unconstitutional action of the Government or its servants. Cases in the second category are
those in which the defendants conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself
which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff. Third category consists of
cases in which exemplary damages are expressly authorised by statute.

b. General and Special Damages

General Damages are those which the law will imply in every violation of a legal right. They
need not be proved by evidence for they arise by interference of law., even though no actual
pecuniary loss has been, or can be, shown. General damages are such as the jury may give
when the Judge cannot point out any measure by which they are to be assessed, except the
opinion and judgement of a reasonable man. Whenever the defendant violates any absolute
legal right of the plaintiff general damages to at least a nominal amount will be implied.

The Expression Special Damages Has Three Different Meanings :(1). It is employed to denote that damage arising out of the special circumstances of the case
which, if properly pleaded, may be super-added to the general damage which the law implies in
every infringement of an absolute right.
(2). Where no actual and positive right (apart from the damage done) has been disturbed, it is
the damage done that is the wrong; and the expression special damage, when used of this
damage, denotes the actual and temporal loss which has, in fact, occurred. Such damage is

12

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

called variously express loss, particular damage, damage in fact, special or particular
cause of loss.
(3). In actions brought for a public nuisance, such as the obstruction of a river or a highway,
special damage denotes that actual and particular loss which the plaintiff must allege and prove
that he has sustained beyond what is sustained by the general public, if his action is to be
supported, such particular loss being, as is obvious, the cause of action.

c. Perspective and Continuing Damages :

Damages resulting from the same cause of action must be recovered at one and the same time as
more than one action will not lie on the same cause of action. If a person is beaten or wounded
and if he sues he must sue for all his damage, past, present and future, certain and contigent .
He cannot maintain an action for a broken arm, and subsequently for a broken rib though he did
not know of it when he commenced his first action.
Damages when given are taken to embrace all the injurious consequences of the wrongful act,
unknown as well as known, which may arise here after, as well as those which have arisen, so
that the right of action is satisfied by one recovery. The cause of action is incomplete, for the
whole thing has but one neck, and that neck was cut off by one act of the defendant,.....It would
be more mischievous to say it would be increasing litigation to say you shall no that all you
are entitled to in your first action, but you shall be driven to bring a second, a third or fourth
action for the recovery of your damages. Thus recovery of damages in an action of assault and
battery is a bar to an action for a subsequent loss in consequence of apart of the skull coming of
subsequently owing to the same injury. A fresh action action can not be brought unless there is
both a new unlawful act and fresh damage.
If the same wrongful act violates two distinct rights, successive actions may be brought in
respect of each of them. If a person sustains two injuries from a blow, one to his person, another
to his property, as for instance, damage to a watch there is no doubt that he can maintain two

13

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

actions in respect of the one blow. It is necessary to distinguish between a complete cause of
action which may yet produce fresh damage in the future, and a continuous cause of action from
which continuous damage steadily flows. There is no such thing as a continuing cause of action;
but what is called a continuing cause of action is a cause of action which arises from the
repetition of acts or omission of the same kind as that for which the action was brought.

d. Damages for Mental suffering and Psychiatric Injury or Nervous

Shock
The common law regarding recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric illness also described
by the expression nervous shock was recently reviewed by the House of Lords in White v Chief
Constable of South Yorkshire, where all relevant earlier authorities were considered. The court
noticed that this law is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify. The
Court, however, declined to reform the leaving this task to Parliament.
For understanding the law as it now stands after Whites case mental suffering has to be divided
into different categories. Mental suffering which follows from foreseeable physical injury is
routinely compensated under the head pain and suffering while awarding compensation for
personal injury.
A third case which also arose out of the same football stadium disaster is Hicks v Chief
Constable of the South Yorkshire Police. In this case the plaintiff made a symbolic claim on
behalf of his daughters who died in the disaster for the distress suffered by them before they
died. The claim was negative holding that fear of impending death felt by the victim of a fatal
injury before that injury is inflicted did not furnish any cause of action.

e. Damages in an action for personal injuries

14

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

Personal injury may cause (a)non- pecuniary as well as (b) pecuniary loss to the plaintiff. Non
pecuniary loss may cover the following heads of damage -: (1) Pain and suffering; (2)loss of
amenities, and (3) loss of expectation of life. Pecuniary loss may cover the following heads :
(1) consequential Expenses; (2) Cost of care, and (3) loss of earnings. A recent casein which all
the above heads of damage except loss of expectation of life figured is Lim Po Cho v Camden
and Islington Area Health Authority. The earlier practice was to make a global award without
indicating the sums under different heads. But the current practice is to item is the award at least
broadly.

Non-Pecuniary Loss
Pain and suffering consequential to injury inflicted on the plaintiff is a proper head of damage
for which the defendant must compensate the plaintiff. it will include pain attributable to
medical treatment for the injury. The amount of compensation will vary with the intensity of
pain and suffering of the plaintiff. So, if the plaintiff after receiving the injury becomes wholly
unconscious or is otherwise unable to experience the pain, he gets no compensation under this
head, however serious the injury may be. Loss of amenities is a separate head of damage and
covers deprivation of ordinary experiences and enjoyment of life. For example, if the plaintiff is
deprived of his ability to play games which he used to play before the injury, he would be
entitled to damage under this head. The important distinction between the heads of pain and
suffering and loss of amenities is this that the fact of unconscious deprives the plaintiff of any
damage under the former head but not so under the latter
Loss of expectation of life is a separate head of damage when a normal expectation of life is
shortened as a result of the injury.
Quantification of damages for non-pecuniary damage such as pain and suffering and loss of
amenities presents great difficulties. The court cannot restore a person to the state of health
which he enjoyed before he suffered a serious injury to his body or brain. The Court can award

15

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

only reasonable compensation to the plaintiff for his suffering the assessment of which is
essentially a guess work.

Pecuniary Loss
The plaintiff is obviously entitled to the expenses consequential to the injury. This item will
include expenses incurred for taking the plaintiff to a hospital, purchase of or equipment needed
for his treatment, fees of private doctors if consulted and similar other expenses. If the plaintiff
will require medical aid in future also, compensation for that too has to be allowed.
If the plaintiffs injuries are such that he needed nursing and attendance, the expenses required
for this are to be allowed under the head cost of care. Serious injuries some times make a person
invalid for years and even for life. The plaintiff in such cases has to become sated for cost of
future care.
In England as also in India, interest is allowed on damages awarded. In England interest on nonpecuniary loss is allowed at the conventional rate of 2% from the date of writ to the judgement.
Interest is also allowed on pretrial pecuniary loss but no interest is allowed on future pecuniary
loss. In India, the practice is to allow interest from the date of suit or claim application. In
Chameli Wati v Delhi Municipal Corporation which was fatal accident case, interest was
allowed on the total award, as finally increased in appeal, from the date of the claim application
at the rate of 9 to 12% from the date of application on the amount of compensation finally
awarded.

f. Damages for Unwanted Pregnancy resulting from medical

negligence
The question as to what damages are recoverable in case of unwanted pregnancy resulting from
medical negligence sterilisation operation has been considered in different countries. It is

16

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

generally accepted that the mother in such a cases would be entitled to recover general and
special damages for personal injury in suffering unwanted pregnancy. But there appears to be a
sharp divergence of opinion on the question whether the parents would be entitled to recover
damages for economic loss in rearing up the child.

g. Injury to Property
If a chattel be lost or destroyed by a wrongful act of the defendant, the measure of damages is
the value of the chattel, but if the chattel be only injured, then the depreciation in its value is the
measure, with an extra allowance for the loss of the use of the chattel while it is being repaired
or replaced. The measure of damages where goods shipped are lost by fire would be the market
value of the goods when and where the goods were damaged less the proceeds of the sale of the
damaged goods, and in addition any freight, insurance, premia, and other incidental expenditure
which may have been lost. A person to whom a wrong is done is entitled to full compensation
for restoring the thing damaged to its original condition. This applies equally to a private person
as to a Corporation or trustee. If this is called restitution, a Corporation as well as a private
person would be entitled to it, but if by restitution is meant complete reconstruction irrespective
of the damage done, then neither a private person nor a Corporation or a trustee is entitled to
complete reconstruction irrespective of the damage done.

Remoteness of Damages
The Problem of Remoteness
After the commission of a tort, the question of defendants liability arises. The consequences of
a wrongful act may be endless or there may consequences of consequences. For example, a
cyclist negligently hits a pedestrian who was carrying a bomb in his pocket. When the
pedestrian is knocked down, the bomb explodes. The pedestrian and four other persons going on
the road die and twenty other persons are severely injured due to the explosion. A building
17

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

nearby is engulfed in fire to due to the same explosion and some women and children therein
are severely injured. The question is can the cyclist be liable for all these consequences?
He is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. No
defendant can be made liable ad infinitum for all the consequences which follow his wrong full
act. On practical grounds, a line must be drawn somewhere, and certain kinds or types of losses,
though a direct result of defendants conduct, may remain uncompensated. As Lord Wright has
said :
The Law cannot take account of everything that follows a wrongful act; it regards, some
subsequent matters as outside the scope of for its selection, because it were infinite or the law to
judge the causes of causes, or, consequences of consequences. In the varied web of affairs, the
law must abstract some consequences as relevant, not perhaps on ground of pure logic but
simply for practical reasons.
Remote and Proximate Damages
How and where is such a line to be drawn? To answer this question we are to see
whether the damage is too remote a consequence of the wrongful act or not. If that is too
remote, the defendant is not liable. If, on the other hand, the act and the consequences are so
connected that they are not too remote but are proximate, the defendant will be liable for the
consequences. It is not necessary that the event which is immediately connected with the
consequences is proximate and that further from it is too remote.
In Haynes v Harwood, the defendants servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a
crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a police
man was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on
the road. On of the defence pleaded by the defendant was no Vus
Act usinter veniens, or remoteness of consequences, i.e., the mischief of the child was the
proximate cause and the negligence of the defendants servants was the remote cause. It was
held that the defendant was liable even though the horses had bolted when a child threw stones

18

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

on them, because such a mischief on the part of the children was anticipated. It is not true to
say that where the plaintiff has suffered damage occasioned by a combination of the wrongful
act of a defendant and some further conscious act by an intervening person, that of itself
prevents
the court from coming to a conclusion in the plaintiffs favour if the accident was the natural
land probable consequence of the wrongful act.

There are two main tests to determine whether the damage is

remote or not :
1. The test of reasonable foresight
According to this test, if the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a
reasonable man, they are not too remote. If, on the other hand, a reasonable man would not have
foreseen the consequences, they are too remote. According to the opinion of Pollock C.B. in
Rigby v He wit, and Greenland v Chaplin, the liability of the defendant is only for those
consequences which could have been foreseen by a reasonable man placed in the circumstances
of the wrong doer. According to this test, if I commit a wrong, I will be liable only for those
consequences which I could foresee, for whatever could not have been foreseen is too remote a
consequence of my wrongful act.
2. The test of directness
The test of reasonable foresight was rejected and the test of directness was considered to be
more appropriate by the Court of Appeal in Re polemis and Furness, Wilthy &Co. Ltd.
According to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct on sequences of this
wrongful act, whether he could have for seen them or not because consequences which directly
follow a wrongful act are not too remote. The only question which has to be seen in such a case
is whether the defendants act is wrongful or not, i.e., could he foresee some damage? If the
answer to this question is in the affirmative, i.e., if he could foresee any damage to the plaintiff,

19

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

then he is liable not merely for those consequences which he could have foreseen but for all the
direct consequences of his wrongful act.
The first authority for the view advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v London &
South Western Railway Company , the railway company was negligent in allowing a heap of
trimmings of hedges and grass near a railway line during dry weather . Spark from the railway
engine set fire to the material. Due to the high wind, the fire was carried to the plaintiffs cottage
which was burnt. The defendants were held liable even though they could not have foreseen the
loss to the cottage.

Interim Damages
The court has no inherent jurisdiction to order interim payment of damages pending the final
disposal of a suit for it is not a matter of procedure but of substantive right. Absence of such a
power in a court resulted in hardship in many cases. In England on the recommendation of the
Winn Committee on personal injuries litigation, provision was made in Section 20 of the
Administration of Justice Act, 1969 for making of rules to enable a court to make an order of
interim payment. Rules 9 to 18 of Order 29 of the Supreme Court Rules made in that behalf
regulate the grant of interim payment. Briefly stated, the rules provide that a court may or der
the defendant to make an interim payment of such an amount as it thinks just, not exceeding are
as on able proportion of the damages which are likely to be recovered finally by the plaintiff.
Interim payment can only be ordered when (1) the defendant has admitted liability, or (2) the
plaintiff has obtained judgment against the defendant for damages to be assessed, or (3) if the
action proceeded to trial, the plaintiff would obtain judgment for substantial damages. Further ,
no order for interim payment can be made if it appears to the court that the defendant is not (1) a
person who is insured in respect of plaintiffs claim, (2) a public authority, or (3) a person whose
means and resources are such as to enable him to make interim payment. In India, there are no
corresponding statute or statutory rules. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has, however, held
that interim payment can be ordered in a suit on the analogy of the English Rules which can be
applied as principles of justice, equity and good conscience. It was on the basis that the High

20

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

Court allowed interim payment of Rs.250 crores in a suit on behalf of Bhopal Gas victims and
their dependents against the Union Carbide Corporation.

Conclusion
Tort is a civil wrong, and secondly every civil wrong is not a tort. Tort is a civil wrong which is
redressibly by an action for un liquidated damages and which is other than a mere breach of
contract or breach of trust. In a suit for damages in a tort case, the Court awards pecuniary
compensation to the plaintiff for the injury or damage caused to him by the wrongful act of the
defendant.

Types of Damages :
21

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

a. Contemptuous Damages, Nominal Damages, Ordinary Damages and Exemplary

Damages . Damages for Unwanted Pregnancy resulting from medical negligence.
b. General and Special Damages.
c. Perspective and Continuing Damages
d. Damages for Mental suffering and Psychiatric Injury or Nervous Shock
e. Damages in an action for personal injuries
f. Damages for Unwanted Pregnancy resulting from medical negligence
g. Injury to Property

The Problem of Remoteness

After the commission of a tort, the question of defendants liability arises. The
consequences of a wrongful act may be endless or there may consequences of consequences.
For example, a cyclist negligently hits a pedestrian who was carrying a bomb in his pocket.
When the pedestrian is knocked down, the bomb explodes. The court has no inherent
jurisdiction to order interim payment of damages pending the final disposal of a suit for it is not
a matter of procedure but of substantive right.

Restitution to the Property

Property restitution also played an important role in the transition from apartheid in South Africa, where
discriminatory confiscations left the black majority holding less than twenty percent of the land. South
Africas restitution program is more clearly addressed toward righting individual wrongs, but its delivery
has been complicated by its subordination to a broader, politically contentious land redistribution
program. As a result, the decision of many restitution claimants to seek compensation rather than return
to their land has been seen as undermining the post- apartheid governments commitment to increasing
the overall proportion of black landownership. However, recent commitments by the government to
complete the process have increased the chance that restitutionif not full redistribution of landwill
22

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

be achieved in a timely manner.

Bosnian restitution was an overtly human rights based remedy for resolving displacement, but was
dependent onand complicated bymassive international intervention. Restitution was conceived of as
a way to secure the return of the two million civilians displaced in Bosnias 19921995 conflict, both for
their own good and in order to facilitate the policies of host- countries that wished to sustainably
repatriate large Bosnian refugee populations. However, the practical difficulties involved in seeking to
undo displacement through return led to a change of focus, with restitution coming to be seen primarily
as a remedy in and of itself. This greatly expedited the restitution of 200,000 claimed homes, supporting
the return of about half of those displaced by the conflict and restoring an important economic asset to
those who chose not to return.
Guatemala, on the other hand, illustrates the risks inherent in raising expectations regarding restitution
and return in the absence of either domestic or international resolve to guarantee full implementation.
Government suppression of a largely indigenous insurgency in the early 1990s led to the displacement of
between one and two million Guatemalans. However, the provisions on restitution set out in the
subsequent peace accords did not create clear precedence for victims of displacement vis--vis those who
subsequently occupied their land. As a result, many victims of the conflict had to be satisfied with
government commitments to provide alternate land elsewhere, a promise that was not fully borne out due
to inadequate funding as well as the ongoing neglect of those groups most marginalized by virtue of their
displacement.
Drawing on these case studies, this study makes the following recommendations regarding how
restitution programming in transitional settings should best be conceived and implemented:
Where restitution is included as a component of transitional programming, it should be conceived
of in a way that supports parallel efforts to provide broader redress and pre-empt future conflict.
In contemporary transitional settings, reparations and restitution should be understood as
functionally separate but complementary responses to human rights violations, each of which
should be available in proportion to manifest need.
Restitution processes should also be designed to complement broader, development-related
efforts to end or pre-empt conflicts over land and property. In this context, restitution is usually

23

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

best seen as a provisional measure applying legal criteria to right specific wrongs and should
only be coordinatednot conflatedwith long-term reform efforts based on overtly political
considerations.

In order for restitution programs to succeed on their own terms and avoid raising false
expectations, their goals should be clearly conceived and mutually complementary.
Fundamentally, restitution should be conceived of as a legal remedy available on equal terms to
all victims of wrongful dispossession.

Restitution can also provide an important durable solution for ending the dislocation of refugees
and IDPs by restoring homes that can be returned to permanently or leased, sold, or exchanged in
order to finance resettlement elsewhere in the country or abroad. The common tendency to
privilege return over other durable solutions should be viewed cautiously as it may become a
rationale for conditioning restitution upon return, jeopardizing the fundamental right of all

victims of displacement to a remedy.

In terms of procedure, restitution programs seeking to address widespread and systematic
violations of property rights should be set up as streamlined administrative programs with

relaxed evidentiary rules.

Restitution programs should be based on clear parameters, and any cut-off date for claims

should encompass the entire time period during which relevant violations occurred.
Restitution programs should extend to significant, settled rights to occupy and use homes and

lands, even where they fall short of full formal title.

Restitution programs should set out clear rules balancing the rights of claimants against those of
subsequent occupants. Because subsequent occupants may develop legitimate rights in
abandoned property with the passage of time, there is no hard and fast rule, but precedence
should generally be given to claimants, with consideration of compensation for subsequent
occupants deemed to have acquired bona fide interests in contested property.

24

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

Bibliography
1. The Law of Torts, 26thEdition Reprint 2012, Justice G.P.Singh(former Chief Justice M.P. High Court)
Lexis Nexis Butter Worths Wadhwa, Nagpur Publication.
2. Law of Torts, 23rdEdition 2013, Dr. R.K. Bangia, Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad Publication.
3. www.Google.com
4. www.Westlaw.com
5. www.Slide Share.com
6. www.Indian Kannon.com
25

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

7. www.Indian Law.com
8. www.U.S Law.com
Recommended.

26