Question:

The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose the appropriate answer:

Show Hint

Loss alone is not enough to sue. Ask which legal right of Mr. X the Railways actually broke, and remember the maxim damnum sine injuria.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Mr. X can sue the Railway authorities for the loss suffered
  • Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in a over-crowded train
  • Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action
  • None of these
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
Mr. X clearly lost money. The question is whether that loss, by itself, lets him sue the Railway authorities. In tort law, loss and legal wrong are two different things, and only a legal wrong is actionable.

Step 2: The Rule of Damnum Sine Injuria.
Damnum sine injuria means damage without the violation of a legal right. Where a person suffers real loss but no legal right of his has been infringed, no suit lies. The opposite rule, injuria sine damno, means violation of a legal right without any actual loss, and that is actionable. So the test is never how much a person lost, it is whether a legal right of his was broken.

Step 3: Applying the Rule.
A passenger has no legal right that the compartment he travels in must carry only a fixed number of people, and overcrowding a train is not in itself the violation of any right vested in a particular passenger. The person who actually wronged Mr. X is the pickpocket, who committed both a crime and a tort against him.
The Railways did not steal from Mr. X and did not owe him a duty to guarantee that no thief would board. The loss and the overcrowding are connected only loosely, through the free criminal act of a third party. So the damage is real but the injury, in the legal sense, is absent. This is a textbook case of damnum sine injuria, and this fact pattern reflects the reasoning applied in the Nizam's State Railway case.

Step 4: Why the other options fail.
Option (A) assumes that loss alone creates a right to sue. It does not, because the Railways broke no legal right of Mr. X.
Option (B) rests on consent. Consent is the wrong ground here. A passenger who boards a crowded train does not thereby consent to being robbed, so the defence of volenti non fit injuria does not fit the facts. The suit fails on the absence of injuria, not on consent.
Option (D) is ruled out because option (C) already states the correct position.

Final Answer:
No legal right of Mr. X was infringed, so his loss gives him no cause of action against the Railways. Option (C) is correct.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Law of Torts Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions