Question

Principle: Damages the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the loss suffered by a person.
Facts: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter’s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favor A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.

• A. A will be entitled to damages
• B. A will not be entitled to damages
• C. A will be entitled to only nominal damages
• D. A will be entitled to exemplary damages

Hint:

In legal matters, damages are awarded to compensate for actual loss, not for punitive reasons, unless stated otherwise.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The principle indicates that when a person suffers a loss, they are entitled to receive compensation for that loss. In this case, A was denied the right to vote, which could have potentially affected the election results, and A’s right to vote was wrongfully obstructed. According to the principle of damages, A is entitled to financial compensation for the harm caused by this deprivation. Therefore, A is entitled to claim damages.
Thus, the correct answer is (A). A will be entitled to damages.
Option (B) is incorrect because A has experienced a loss, and damages are due. Option (C) is incorrect because A is not entitled to just nominal damages; he is entitled to the actual damages suffered. Option (D) is incorrect because exemplary damages, which are intended to punish, do not apply in this case.

Answer 2

This question tests whether damages require a demonstrable practical loss, or whether the violation of a legal right is itself enough to found a damages claim. Let's assess each option.

1. A will be entitled to damages: The principle defines damages as money recompense for loss suffered by a person. A had a legal right to vote, was on the voter's list, reported at the booth in time, and was still wrongfully prevented from casting his vote by the returning officer. The wrongful denial of a legal right is itself a loss capable of recompense in money, independent of whether A's preferred candidate ultimately won or lost. Since A suffered the violation of his right to vote, he is entitled to damages for that loss, regardless of the eventual election outcome.
2. A will not be entitled to damages: This would only follow if no loss at all had occurred, but the deprivation of A's legal right to vote is itself the loss the principle compensates, so this option overlooks that the violation of a right, not merely its practical consequences, is what grounds the claim.
3. A will be entitled to only nominal damages: Nothing in the principle as given distinguishes between nominal and substantial damages or caps the recompense at a token amount; it simply entitles a person who suffered loss to money recompense, without qualifying the type or scale of damages.
4. A will be entitled to exemplary damages: The principle describes damages purely as compensatory recompense for loss suffered, not as a punitive or exemplary remedy meant to punish the wrongdoer, so characterising the entitlement as exemplary goes beyond what the principle supports.

Because A's legal right to vote was wrongfully obstructed, and that obstruction is itself a loss under the principle regardless of the eventual election result, A is entitled to damages.

Therefore, the correct answer is A will be entitled to damages.

Answer 3

The principle defines damages narrowly, as money recompense for a loss suffered, without saying anything about the type or degree of that loss. The question becomes whether a loss occurred at all, separate from whatever happened afterward in the election.

1. A will be entitled to damages: A had a legal right to vote, appeared on the voter's list, and reported at the booth on time, yet was wrongfully stopped from casting his vote. That wrongful denial of a legal right is itself a loss under the principle's plain wording, regardless of what the election result turned out to be, so A satisfies the definition and is entitled to recompense.
2. A will not be entitled to damages: This would only follow if no loss occurred, but the denial of A's legal right to vote is precisely the kind of loss the principle compensates; the fact that his preferred candidate happened to win afterward doesn't erase that A was denied his own individual entitlement.
3. A will be entitled to only nominal damages: The principle's wording sets no scale or ceiling on the recompense, it simply ties money recompense to loss suffered, without distinguishing nominal amounts from any other measure. Reading in a cap that the text doesn't contain goes beyond the definition given.
4. A will be entitled to exemplary damages: The principle describes damages purely as recompense for loss, a compensatory idea, not as a punitive tool aimed at the wrongdoer. Characterising the entitlement as exemplary imports a purpose the definition never mentions.

Testing A's situation against the plain definition, money recompense for loss suffered, shows the wrongful denial of his right to vote is itself the loss, independent of the ultimate election result.

Therefore, the correct answer is A will be entitled to damages.