All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.
Decide.
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
Principles:
1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.
2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.
  • a)
    The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.
  • b)
    Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.
  • c)
    Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.
  • d)
    Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new ye...
Principles:

Applicability of Legal Injury
- In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.

Volenti non fit injuria Doctrine
- Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.
Facts:
Ramesh lost his wallet at a famous Bar on new year evening, which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. The owner offered him compensation equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy, but Ramesh sued the owner for the loss.
Analysis:
- Ramesh's legal rights were not infringed by the owner as it was clearly mentioned at the entrance and inside the Bar that the owner will not be responsible for any loss of goods.
- Ramesh willingly placed himself in a position where harm (loss of belongings) might result by not taking care of his belongings, knowing that some degree of harm might result.
- While Ramesh did suffer a loss, his legal rights were not violated, and he cannot claim damages for his own negligence.
Conclusion:
Based on the principles of legal injury and the Volenti non fit injuria doctrine, Ramesh cannot claim damages from the owner of the Bar for the loss of his wallet and documents. The owner had clearly stated the disclaimer, and Ramesh's own actions contributed to the harm suffered. Thus, Ramesh's lawsuit against the owner is not valid.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new ye...
This answer is correct as per strict application of principles because Ramesh willingly places himself in a position where harm might result.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. Anita is a child of 8 years. One day while she was playing on the roads a Brahmin Pandit kidnapped her and took her to an abandoned temple and raped her. When she was found out after 2 days she was senseless due to excessive bleeding and was grievously hurt. Who can claim compensation for Anita?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. Piyali is the daughter of Rajat. One day when Rajat was out his neighbour entered the house and finding Piyali alone tried to molest her. Knowing this Rajat filed a case in the court. Under which act the neighbour will be liable?

Direction: Given below are the statements of facts of the case. After statement of facts, legal principles are given apply the principles to the facts of the case and select the most appropriate answer from among the four alternatives.Principle An employer is responsible for any accident or loss caused to his employees, during the course of employment.Facts Ajay runs the Indian Circus. The circus has an interesting night show. Two motor cyclists, Ramesh and Suresh, rotate their motorcycles inside a big iron globe in complete darkness. And the audience, especially, the children gives a big clap. One day, it so happens that during one night show, an accident occurs inside the globe, Ramesh and Suresh collide with each other and Ramesh loses both his legs. His parents claim compensation from Ajay, the proprietor of the circus.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. Fast track special courts are courts designated for?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. POCSO cases will be tried in

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Facts: Ramesh and Suresh went to the famous Bar of the city on new year evening where Ramesh lost his wallet which contained all his money and identity proof documents including PAN and Aadhaar Card. He asked for the compensation and owner told him that he can give the concession equivalent to the amount of money he lost, out of courtesy only, and Ramesh cannot claim his right to get that money back from the owner of Bar because it was written clearly on gate and even inside the Bar that 'the owner will not responsible for any loss of goods, please take care of your belongings'. In spite of this, Ramesh sued the owner.Decide.Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principles:1. In the law of tort, a person can claim only those damages which arise out of a legal injury and only that damage is actionable.2. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places himself in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party.a)The owner has offered to compensate him, hence he cannot sue him back.b)Money cannot compensate his actual loss that is PAN and Aadhaar Card.c)Although he suffered damage but his legal right is not infringed. Hence, he cannot claim the damage.d)Ramesh can sue the owner for any other damage which he deems fit so.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup