Distinction Between General and Special Damages — Proof and Pleadings.
![]() |
| Distinction Between General and Special Damages — Proof and Pleadings |
پیرا 1: مقدمے کا پس منظر
پیرا 2: دعوی اور اقسام
پیرا 3: ٹرائل اور اپیل کورٹ کا فیصلہ
پیرا 4: سندھ ہائی کورٹ میں تنازع
پیرا 5: عدالت کا قانونی موقف
پیرا 6: حتمی فیصلہ
پیرا 7: اہم قانونی سبق
Must read judgement.
PLD 2026 Sindh 1
Types of damages---"General damages" and "special damages"---Definition and scope---"General damages" are defined as immediate, direct, and approximate result of the wrong complained of---Law presumes general damages to flow from the negligence complained of---These damages have to be proved but it is not necessary to allege them in detail in the pleadings---General damages are governed by the rule of thumb, whereas, special damages are required to be specifically pleaded and proved---General damages are those which the law implies even if not specially pleaded, which includes compensation for pain and suffering and the like and, if the injuries suffered are such as to lead to continuing or permanent disability, compensation for loss of earning power in the future---"Special damages" are explained as actual but not necessarily the result of injury complained of---Special damages mean some specific item of loss which the plaintiff alleges is the result of the defendant's negligence in the particular case, although the law does not presume it to flow from the negligence as a matter of course---Special damage consists of out-of-pocket expenses and loss of earnings incurred down to the date of trial and are generally capable of substantially exact pecuniary assessment---Basic principle so far as loss of earnings and out-of-pocket expenses is concerned is that the injured person should be placed in the same financial position, so far as can be done by an award of money, as he would have been had the accident not happened---In simple words the damages are intended to put a person in the same position as he would have been in, had he not received the injury.
Recovery of general and special damages---Scope---Failure to mention full particulars of the special damages in the pleadings---Effect---Delay in completing the construction work of the hospital due to dangling of high tension electricity wires---Removal of such wires on orders of the Supreme Court after protracted litigation---Increase in the cost of construction and prices of medical equipment, furniture and fittings, mesne profits and mental torture---Respondent/plaintiff instituted suit for recovery of general and special damages---Trial Court decreed the suit while granting both types of damages, which was concurred with by the first appellate court---Validity---Plaintiff was required to mention full particulars of all special damages, he was claiming, in his pleadings and prove them in the trial later on---Award of mesne profit and general damages i.e. mental torture and hardship pleaded in the plaint were finally awarded to the plaintiff, which had attained finality having not been challenged before the Supreme Court---Controversy before High Court was related to only award of special damages i.e. increase in the cost of construction and prices of medical equipment, furniture and fittings---In absence of mandatory details about the actual loss to the plaintiff, there was virtually nothing on record to quantify the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff with the amount he was claiming and decreed his suit as prayed---Principle that damages were intended to put a person in the same position as he would have been in had he not received the injury was not in the given facts and circumstances attracted for want of necessary description of actual loss suffered by the plaintiff---Plaintiff had brought on record no evidence that he had actually suffered/spent any expenses either on construction of the 1st floor of the hospital or on purchase of medical equipment, furniture and fittings to measure damages with the amounts he was claiming---Plaintiff had failed to adduce any evidence indicating that he incurred out-of-pocket expenses with difference in prices between the year 2003 and the year 2007/2008 on both counts i.e. construction of the 1st floor of the hospital or purchase of medical equipment, furniture and fittings---Relief of special damages could not be given on the basis of hypothesis or presumption of the loss the aggrieved person had either suffered or was likely to suffer in future, and which he had actually not incurred in reality---Plaintiff had failed to establish his entitlement for special damages---Second Appeal was partially allowed,in circumstances, and impugned judgments were set aside dismissing the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of such reliefs.

No comments:
Post a Comment