1. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies
Bidholi, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
Title
An Overview on Various Damages in Law of Torts
Submission Date: 2012-11-05
Submitted to Submitted by
Asst. Prof. Radhe Shyam Prasad Dhruv Tripathi
COLS,UPES B.A.LL.B. 3rd
Sem.
Sap ID: 500017513
Roll No. R450211038

2. Certificate
This is to certify that this project “An overview on various Damages in Law of Torts” made
by Dhruv Tripathi, B.A.LL.B. 3rd
Sem. This project is totally made by me and not copied
from anywhere. If any plagiarism find by you, you can cancel my project.
Thank You !!
Dhruv Tripathi

3. Acknowledgement
This is to thank every people who helped me while doing this project . I want to thanks Mr.
Radheshyam Prasad , whose classes helped me a lot. College library also helped me with the
book and the sites.
I also want to thanks my seniors and friends Udit Raj Sharma ,Anand Sharma and Sonam
Priya Singh who helped me a lot .

4. Table of Contents
 Abbreviation
 Introduction
 Damages
a. Contemptuous, Nominal, Ordinary and Exemplary Damages
b. General and Special Damages
c. Prospective and Continuing Damages
d. Damage for Mental Suffering and Psychiatric injury or Nervous Shock
e. Damages in an action for personal injuries
i. Non-Pecuniary Loss
ii. Pecuniary Loss
f. Damages for unwanted pregnancy resulting from medical negligence
g. Injury to Property
 Remoteness of Damages
 Interim Damages
 Conclusion
 Bibliography

5. Abbreviation
A&E: Adolphus and Ellis
A.C.: Appeal Cases
A.I.R: All India Reporter
A.L.T: Andhra Law Times
B. & B: Broderip and Bingham
B.&C.: Barnwell and Creswell
B.&P. : Bosanquet and Puller.
B.&S.: Best and Smith.
B.L.J.R.: Bihar Law Journal Reports.
Civ.P.C. : Civil Procedure Code
Crim.P.C. : Criminal Procedure Code.
I.C.W.: Indian Civil Wrong Bill
I.P.C: Indian Penal Code
L.R.: Law Reports
L.J.: Lord Justice.
W.L.R: Weekly Law Reporter
W.N.: Weekly Notes
Y.B.: Year Books

6. 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, crooked
or 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 redressible by an action for
unliquidated damages.” – Winfield.
Tort is a civil wrong, and secondly every civil wrong is not a tort. Tort is a civil wrong which
is redressible by an action for unliquidated 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 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 thereafter
does not fulfil 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‟.
3. Tort is redressible by an action for unliquidated 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

7. 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 unliquidated. Liquidated damages 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 unliquidated.1
1
Law of Torts, Dr. R.K.Bangia, Allahabad Law Agency (Twenty-Second Edition- 2010) pg no. 3-12.

8. Damages
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. 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 Court‟s enquiry resolves in deciding three questions : (1) Was
the damage alleged caused by the defendant‟s wrongful act ? (2) Was it remote ? and (3)
What is the monetary compensation for the damage?
If the damage alleged was not caused by the defendant‟s 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 defendant‟s wrongful act, it would be taken to
have been caused by the wrongful act. Conversely it means that the defendant‟s 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 poisoning even if he had been treated with all due care. The
doctor‟s negligence in such cases is not the cause of the patients death.2
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
a 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
2
Bernett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, (1968) I All ER 1068 : (1968) 2 WLR.
422 : 111 SJ 912.

9. necessarily nominal damages.3
An award of nominal damages implies no censure of the
plaintiff‟s 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 plaintiff‟s 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 which would put the injured party in the same position
as he would have been in if he would not have sustained the injury.4
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.5
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 Lords6
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 defendant‟s 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.” 7
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.
3
Mediana v Comet, (1900) AC 113 (116) : 82 LT 95 : 16 TLR 194; Bishun Singh v AWN Wyatt, (1911) 14
CLJ 515
4
Jeet Kumari Poddar v Chittagong Enginnering and Electric Supply Co. Ltd., ILR (1946) Cal 433.
5
Phillips v Ward, (1956) 1 All ER 874 (CA)
6
Rookes v Barnard, supra; Cassel & Co. Ltd. v Broome, (1972) AC 1027 : (1977) 2 WLR 645 : (1977) 1 All
ER 801 (HL)
7
Prehn v Royal Bank of Liverpool, (1870) LR 5 Ex. 92, 99.

10. (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
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.8
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
contingent. 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 not
have 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.9
Thus recovery of damages in an
action of assault and battery is a bar to an action for a subsequent loss in consequence of a
part of the skull coming of subsequently owing to the same injury.10
A fresh action action
cannot be brought unless there is both a new unlawful act and fresh damage.11
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 actions in respect of the one blow.12
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.13
8
Ashby v White, (1704) 2 Ld Raym 938.
9
PER BEST, C.J. in Richardson v Mellish, (1824) 2 Bing 229, 240.
10
Fetter v Beale, (1701) 1 Ld Ryam 339 : 12 Mod 42.
11
Hodsoll v Stallebrass, (1840) 11 A & E 301
12
Darley Main Colliery Co. V Mitchell, (1886) 11 App Cas 127, 144: 54 LT 882 : 2 TLR 301
13
PER LINDSEY, LJ, in Hole v Chard-Union, (1894) 1 Ch 293, 295.

11. 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,14
where all relevant earlier authorities were
considered. The court noticed that this law “is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are
difficult to justify.”15
The Court, however, declined to reform the leaving this task to
Parliament.16
For understanding the law as it now stands after White‟s 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.17
A third case which also arose out of the same football stadium disaster is Hicks v Chief
Constable of the South Yorkshire Police.18
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 negatived 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
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.19
A recent case
in which all the above heads of damage except loss of expectation of life figured is Lim Poh
Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority.20
The earlier practice was to make a
global award without indicating the sums under different heads.21
But the current practice is
to itemise the award at least broadly.22
Non-Pecuniary Loss :
Pain and suffering consequential to injury inflicted on the plaintiff is aproper 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
14
(1999) 1 All ER 1 (HL).
15
Ibid, p. 38 (Lord Steyn).
16
Ibid p. 39.
17
Ibid. pp. 30, 31, 40 ( See further pp. 224,225, post).
18
(1992) 2 All ER 65 (HL).
19
See Further Klaus Mittelbachert v The East India Hotels Ltd. AIR 1997 Delhi 201, p. 217 ( The Law of Torts,
26th
Edition 2012, Lexis Nexis Buttherworths Wadhwa Publication)
20
(1979) 2 All ER 910 : (1980) AC 174 : (1979) 3 WLR 44 (HL).
21
Watson v Powles, (1968) 1 QB 596.
22
Jefford v Gee, (1970) 2 QB 130

12. 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.23
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 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 plaintiff‟s 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 sometimes
make a person invalid for years and even for life. The plaintiff in such cases has to be
compensated for cost of future care.24
In England as also in India, interest is allowed on damages awarded. In England interest on
non-pecuniary loss is allowed at the conventional rate of 2% from the date of writ to the
judgement.25
Interest is also allowed on pretrial pecuniary loss but no interest is allowed on
future pecuniary loss.26
In India, the practice is to allow interest from the date of suit or claim
application.27
In Chameli Wati v Delhi Municipal Corporation28
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.
23
Flint v Lovell, (1934) All ER 200 : (1935) 1 KB 354 : 50 TLR 127
24
Lim Poh Choo v Camden & Islington Area Authority, (1979) 2 All ER 910 (HL).
25
Pallavan Transport Corporation v P. Murthy, AIR 1989 Mad. 14.
26
Cookson v Knowles, (1978) 2 All ER 604 : (1979) AC 556 : (1978) 2 WLR 978 (HL)
27
Section 34, Code of Civil Procedure; S.110 CC, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; & Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v
Ved Mitra, 1974 ACJ 189.
28
1985 ACJ 645 : AIR 1986 SC 1191

13. 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 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.29
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.30
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.31
29
State of Haryana v Smt. Santra, AIR 2000 SC 1888, p. 1895 : (2000) 5 SCC 182.
30
Rogers Pyatt Shellac Co. v John King & Co. Ltd. (1925) ILR 53 Cal. 239.
31
Lotus Line P. Ltd. v State, (1965) 67 Bom LR 429 : AIR 1965 SC 1314.

14. Remoteness of Damages
The Problem of Remoteness
After the commission of a tort, the question of defendant‟s 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 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 wrongful
act. On practical grounds, a line must be drawn s omewhere, and certain kinds or types of
losses, though a direct result of defendant‟s 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,32
the defendant‟s 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
policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and
children on the road. On of the defences pleaded by the defendant was novus actus
interveniens, or remoteness of consequences, i.e., the mischief of the child was the proximate
cause and the negligence of the defendant‟s servants was the remote cause. It was held that
the defendant was liable even though the horses had bolted when a child threw stones 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
32
(1935) 1 K.B. 146.

15. the court from coming to a conclusion in the plaintiff‟s favour if the accident was the natural
and 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 Hewit,33
and Greenland v Chaplin,34
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 wrongdoer.
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.35
According to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct
consequences of this wrongful act, whether he could have forseen 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 defendant‟s 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, 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 Wetern Railway Company ,36
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 plaintiff‟s cottage which was burnt. The defendants were
held liable even though they could not have foreseen the loss to the cottage.
33
(1850) 5 Ex. 240.
34
(1850) 5 Ex. 243.
35
( 1921) 3 K.B. 560
36

16. 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.37
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 order
the defendant to make an interim payment of such an amount as it thinks just, not exceeding a
reasonable 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 plaintiff‟s 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.38
It was on the basis that the High Court allowed interim payment of Rs.250 crores in a suit on
behalf of Bhopal Gas victims and their dependants against the Union Carbide Corporation.39
37
Moore v Assignment Courier Ltd., (1977) 2 All ER 842 : (1977) 1 WLR 638 (C.A.)
38
Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India, 1988 MPLJ 540.
39
Ibid.

17. Conclusion
Tort is a civil wrong, and secondly every civil wrong is not a tort. Tort is a civil wrong which
is redressible by an action for unliquidated 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 :
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 defendant‟s 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.

18. Bibliography
1. The Law of Torts, 26th
Edition Reprint 2012, Justice G.P.Singh(
former Chief Justice M.P. High Court) Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur Publication.
2. Law of Torts, 22nd
Edition 2010, Dr. R.K. Bangia, Allahabad Law
Agency, Allahabad Publication.
3. Google