1955 IndLaw MP 117, AIR 1956 MB 84
Law of Torts
· Mst. Chamelibai, on the evening of 6-12-1946, went to the house of Gowardhandas for distributing ‘Ladoos’ for the Jalwa Ceremony conducted by her family on the occasion of her recently born grandson. However, he declined them and Chamelibai left for her home, abusing the plaintiff. But shortly afterwards, she returns to his house again along with her sons Swaroopkishore and Roopkishore, who then abused Gowardhandas and Swaroopkishore also slapped him on his face.
· Gowardhandas filed a complaint. In the trial’s court Gowardhandas even further alleged that Swaroopkishore also threatened him to beat him with a shoe and that Chamelibai also picked up a stone. Plaintiff Gowardhandas demanded Rs.15000 as claim for damages.
· Defendant Roopkishore denied his presence at the plaintiff’s house and the defendants Chamelibai and Swaroopkishore claimed that while declining ‘ladoos’, Gowardhandas started abusing Chamelibai and that Swaroopkishore went to bring her back and that all the allegations were false.
· The trial’s judge, however, found that Swaroopkishore slapped the plaintiff and directed the him to pay general as well as exemplary damages along with Rs.1000 as damages and also asked to cover the plaintiff’s full cost of court.
· Swaroopkishore appealed against this decision of the court, where the learned counsel of the appellant urged that the evidence produced before the court should be unworthy of any credit and that version of defendant-respondent Gowardhandas was improbable and false.
· However, High court upheld the decision of the Additional District Judge in holding that Swaroopkishore slapped Gowardhandas.
· It was then contested that Swaroopkishore was 15/16 years old during the incident, and since he was a minor, he could not be held liable for damages. But the contention was rejected by the court.
· The appellant’s counsel later contested that Rs. 1000 as damages was a very large sum for a case of this kind, which the court dismissed and later dismissed the appeal with costs.
ISSUE
There are 2 issues in this case –
· Whether Swaroopkishore committed the tort of trespass on person of Gowardhandas or not?
· Whether a minor can be held liable for his for torts in the same manner and to the same extent as that of an adult or not?
RULE
The tort of trespass on a person, in the question, is of Battery. “Battery refers to application of force on another person where direct contact is made without any consent and without any lawful justification. It is that tort which is actionable per se, i.e., it does not require any damage element.”[1]
ANALYSIS
In the tort of battery, four elements are considered, which are – act element, contact element, consent and intention. In this case, it was needed to be proved that Swaroopkishore’s act presented all the elements of the battery, to hold him liable.
For battery, the defendant must have committed the tort against the plaintiff intentionally. It describes that there must have been some prior reason which must have provoked the defendant to commit the act. In this case, Swaroopkishore had the intention for his act, as the plaintiff refused to accept the bearings from Chamelibai, her mother, for which the defendant-appellant slapped plaintiff-respondent in outrage, thus fulfilling the need for intention.
Next, “the defendant must perform an act which leads to a direct contact with the body of the plaintiff in anger and that too without his consent to commit Battery”[2]. Under this case, the defendant made a direct contact with the body of the plaintiff as and when he slapped him intentionally. It was also clear that the defendant pulled this act of slapping, after abusing him, for not accepting sweets from his mother, which reflects the anger and furiousness of the defendant towards the plaintiff, which clearly establishes the act element and the contact element.
Lastly, for establishing the act of battery, the act performed should be non-consensual i.e., the consent should not be given either directly or indirectly through any conduct. In the above case, defendant had no consent from the plaintiff to conduct an act which would result in the direct contact with the body of the plaintiff.
Also, the question that if a minor should be held liable like an adult for his torts was resolved through this case, as the court held that “a minor is, in general, liable for his torts in the same manner and to the same extent as an adult.”[3] There is no exemption of age for being liable of an act which is tortious and is conducted in its very essence. The act of slapping, in this case, was a direct act of illegal behavior of defendant-appellant, which was wrongful from the beginning and thus was held liable for his torts.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the plaintiff was not only harmed physically by the defendant but also mentally because of the injury to his dignity and position, as claimed by the plaintiff. Slapping someone in anger amounts to the liability of battery and that Swaroopkishore was rightly held liable for his tortious act against Gowardhandas.
As seen in the case Vosburg v Putney[4], where an unlawful activity of kicking to plaintiff by defendant resulted in permanent impairment for the plaintiff and thus, was accounted in for the tortious activity of battery as all the elements of battery were present. The same way, in this case, Swaroopkishore committed battery against Gowardhandas and court held the point of view that all the elements of battery were present in the acts of the defendant and thus held him liable.
Agreeing with the Madhya Pradesh’s High Court decision of upholding the trial court’s decision that the defendant’s act of slapping the plaintiff was an outrage committed against him with disregard to his right and also holding that the age does not account in as a potential factor in this case because of the act being a revenge and wrongful from the start, makes the court decision in this landmark judgment praiseworthy and exemplary for the cases related to the torts of trespass on a person.
This article is authored by Aviral Jain, a third year B.Com.LLB. student at Jindal Global Law School
[1] J.A. Jolowicz, P.H. Winfield, W.H.V. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (first published 1971, 19th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2014) 576
[2] J.A. Jolowicz, P.H. Winfield, W.H.V. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (first published 1971, 19th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2014) 576 [3] Swarupkishore v Goverdhandas [1955] Indlaw MP 117, AIR 1956 MB 84 (Purshottam Vinayak Dixit J)
[4] Vosburg v Putney [1891] 50 N.W. 403, (Wis. 1891)
Comments