BAHADUR SINGH JAIN Vs. RAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Respondent was tenant in a shop owned by appellant. Parties agreed before Rent Controller to repairs of shop by appellant in a week at an expense of Rs. 480.00 on 17.8.66. There was extention of time and it was last done on 2.9.66. Repairs could not be completed until 27.9.66 and then tenant carried out the same himself. Then on 2.2.67, plaintiff sued appellant for Rs. 3,500.00 as damages @ Rs. 150.00 per day for period when shop remained under repairs, Rs. 800.00 for value of goods lost due to theft facilitated by removal of door for repairs and for value of material supplied for repair. Trial Court dismissed the suit but in 1st appeal is was held that landlord had taken at least 16 days extra while doing repairs and shop remained without doors and tenant was entitled to Rs. 25 for each extra day as damages and passed a decree for Rs. 375.00. The landlord appealed to High Court.] Judgment, para II onwards is :-

(2.) With regard to the quantum of damages, it may be observed that damages are of two kinds, namely, general and special. General damages are those which arise naturally in the normal course of things and the special damages are those special and extraordinary circumstances beyond reasonable prevision of the parties (see Monarch S. S. Co. v. Karishamns Oliefabriker, (1949) A. C. 1966). In Stroms Bruks Aktis Bolag Vs. Hutchand, (1905) A. C. '515, Lord Macnagten observed that "General damages are such as the law will presume to be the direct, natural or probable consequence of the act complained of, while special damages, on the other hand, are such as the law will not infer from the nature of the act. They do not follow in ordinary course and they are exceptional in their character and, therefore, they must be claimed specially and proved strictly." In prahn Vs. Royal Bank of Liverpool, (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 92, Martin J. observed that "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......... Special damages are given in respect of any consequences reasonable and probably arising from the breach complained of". General damages need not be specifically pleaded though the amount claimed must be specified (see Mayne on Damages, 12th Edition, page 813). Order 20 Rule 6 of the Rules of the British Supreme Court required every statement of claim to be stated specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims. This is at par with our order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mayne in paragraph 970 stated "General damage consists in all items of loss which the plaintiff is not required to specify in his pleadings in order to permit proof and recovery in respect of them at the trial. Special damage consists in all items of loss which must be specified by him before they may be proved and recovery granted.

(3.) In Minor Veeran Vs. T.V. Krishnamo- orthy, AIR 1966 Kerala 172, the learned single Judge quoted with approval a passage from Law of Pleadings by Mogha. The quotation is from 10th Edition on pages 24-25, which in the 12th Edition, is found on page 27. It is to the effect that general damages need not be pleaded specifically, nor is any evidence necessary to prove their amount and the plaintiff might only allege facts and end with the prayer for award of damages. It is further observed that general damage is such as the law will presume to be the natural or probable consequence of the defendant's act and it need not be proved by evidence. In Minor Veeran's case (Supra) (AIR 1966 Kerala 172) the court further observed that the plaintiff claiming damages but failing to prove any special damage might be entitled to general damages and reference has been made to Hebridean Coast v. Herbrideen Coast, (1961). A.C. 545, where the plaintiff failing in his claim for special damages was awarded general damages.