PADMAVATI VS. DUGGANAIKA, (1975)

INTRODUCTION

This case, Padmavati vs. Dugganaika, falls under tort law. In tort law, if a person does a wrongful conduct which results in injury on the part of another individual, he is held accountable and must pay damages or offer some other remedy as determined by the Court in the case of the sufferer of such an act.

However, in some situations, even though a person suffers a loss as a result of another person’s actions, he is unable to seek compensation from that person due to the operation of tort defences. One of the arguments accessible to a defendant is volenti non fit injuria, which states that the plaintiff does not have a right to compensation since he consented to the act that caused him harm.

What is Volenti Non-Fit Injuria: Every person has a duty under tort law to always behave with a reasonable amount of caution to prevent any injury that may result from their negligence in failing to do so. For example, if a person oversees a vehicle, he had a moral obligation to operate it carefully and within speed restrictions so that no accidents occur that may hurt other people.

This is the basic rule in torts, however there are some exceptions that may be used in these instances, which are known as tort defences. A defendant can avoid culpability using these defences, while volenti non-fit injuria is another such defence accessible to the defendant. If a person provides his agreement to another person performing an act that causes him to be wounded, he cannot seek compensation from that person since the act had been one to which he had willingly accepted. The plaintiff’s assent serves as a defence, and this defence is known as volenti non fit injuria, which implies that no harm comes to a consenting individual.

FACTS OF THE CASES

The defendant is Dugganaika, the person who is the proprietor of the jeep with registration number MYS 438. On 16-3-1969. He was on his way to Kodur from Hiriyaka. In this instance, Mohiddin, respondent 3, is the driver of the vehicle & drove it to Kodur. After arriving in Kodur, respondent 1, Dugganaika, got out of the jeep and directed respondent 3 to drive the jeep to Hosanagar & to check the petrol tank.

Defendant in this matter, the driver of the car, was on his way to the gas station. Two people took a ride in his automobile on the way. Krishna Bhat & the deceased Ramakrislina boarded the jeep in Kodur. The jeep thereafter began its journey towards Hosanagar and when it had covered a distance of about one mile from kodur. Rama Rao who was waiting for the bus to arrive gives the signal to mohiddin for him to stop the jeep. However, the driver failed to respond to Rama Rao’s signal.

It was observed that the vehicle was slowing down and Rama Rao noticed a noise emerging from the jeep As a result, he issued the command to proceed to the jeep. Following that, the driver began driving the jeep, and suddenly  the right-hand portion of the main body of the vehicle flew apart, throwing the driver and Ramakrishna out. Ramakrishna was seriously injured and afterwards proclaimed dead. 

It is essential to highlight that the defence of unavoidable accidents is only viable where the incident is unexpected and has unforeseen consequences notwithstanding the use of reasonable precautions and safeguards. If the incident in question is foreseen and avoidable, for instance, heavy rain or flooding, and the resulting harm can be averted with adequate preventative measures, then the defence of an inevitable accident fails.

ISSUES RELATED

• The main issue in this case is whether the accident was a result of respondent (Mohiddin) negligent driving?
• Was the driver, Harrison, in giving a lift to the deceased man acting within the scope of his employment?
• Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria applies when there is no direct express consent?

ELEMENTS OF VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA:

There are, however, some important factors or requirements that must be included in a case for the defense of volenti non fit injuria to be used, and it’s only if all of them are met can this defense be used to avoid responsibility.

There are 2 essential elements Volenti non-fit injuria

1. The plaintiff is aware of the danger.
2. With understanding of the risk, the plaintiff has willingly agreed to endure the harm.

Therefore, a defendant is absolved of obligation where the plaintiff is informed of the risk of damage that is expected to be created by an act and nevertheless chooses to conduct the action and thus accepts to incur the injury.

However, simple awareness of the risk is insufficient for the adoption of this defense. This is commonly referred to as Scienti non fit injuria, meaning implies that mere knowledge does not imply agreement to the risk. Thus, knowing anything is just a partial fulfillment of the prerequisites for applying volenti non fit injuria.

Burden of Proof – In the event that the defendant asserts one of the defenses about volenti non fit injuria, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that the plaintiff had a full understanding of the act and agreed to the risk inherent in the act, and the defendant must also demonstrate that the plaintiff was fully aware of the degree of risk present in the act in order to be successful in proving this defence.

CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff’s assent is critical in the defense of volenti non fit injuria since the defendant will only be able to use this defense if he freely consents to an act.

CONSENT OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent’s contention rested on the fact that the jeep was not being driven carelessly or recklessly by respondent 3 and that it was a complete accident that one of the bolts holding the wheel to the axle of the vehicle broke loose & the wheel ripped away from its axle.

JUDGEMENT

The Court stated that this was a matter of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, that indicates that if an individual freely conducts a certain activity to which he understands there may be a risk of injury, he has willingly decided to expose himself to the hazard if it occurs. In such instances, the master or servant will not be held responsible for any harm that is inflicted to the individual as a result of any hazard that he willingly agreed to participate in. In a comparable manner in this situation, other people willingly accepted a ride in the car despite the possibility of a mishap.

Held – neither the driver nor his master could be made liable, firstly, because it was a case of sheer accident and secondly, the strangers mad voluntarily got into the jeep and as such, the principle of volenti non-fit injuria was applicable to the case.

CONCLUSION

Accident defense does not only apply to car accidents, but also to a variety of other situations. As in the case of Padmavati vs. Dugganaika. Volenti non fit injuria is a tort law defense in which the person who commits an act of violence is excused coming from accountability considering the victim of such an inappropriate provides his consent to the spare of such an act, and this consent is needed to be free for this defence to be effective in a case. This defense is also characterized by limitations, including rescue instances and the recklessness of the defendant under which the defendant shall be held accountable even if the plaintiff gives consent. Thus, in allowing this defense, courts must confirm that the elements of the defense are met and that the act does not fall within the limitations set on this defense.

REFERENCES

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/volenti-non-fit-injuria/
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/volenti-non-fit-injuria/
3. https://lawbhoomi.com/top-5-important-case-laws-on-defences-to-the-law-of-torts/

This Article is written by Simran Haider Pathan, student at Balaji Law College of Pune, Maharashtra, Intern at Legal Vidhiya

Admin