Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Nuisance is the unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of his land or some rights over or in connection with it.
Fact Situation: Ashok, in his nineties, is hard of hearing and plays the radio very loudly throughout the day and on a daily basis. Raju, his neighbor, complained that he cannot listen to his favorite TV show in his home due to the radio of Ashok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Listening to the radio is Ashok’s freedom.
Ashok is creating a nuisance to his neighbour by playing the radio loud perpetually and disturbing Raju in being able to listen to the TV in his home.
Raju is creating a nuisance by complaining about Ashok’s enjoyment of hearing his radio.
Raju should appreciate that Ashok is aged and hard of hearing.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Ashok is creating a nuisance to his neighbour by playing the radio loud perpetually and disturbing Raju in being able to listen to the TV in his home.
Explanation:
Private Nuisance. Private nuisance may be defined as unlawful interference with a person's use, comfort, enjoyment, and any interest that a person may have over his land... An interference becomes unlawful and constitutes a nuisance when it unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his land. Ashok will be considered as creating a nuisance for his neighbor as he is listening to music at unreasonably high volumes which are interfering with the right of his neighbor Raju.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Nothing is an offense if it is done under intoxication and the person committing the offense was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without the knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
Principles: A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employer (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master. · In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.
Facts: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.
Legal Principle: The law states that a food business operator must be registered with or licensed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to run a food business.
Fact Situation: Kavita’s neighbours suffer food poisoning after consuming sweets gifted by her on the occasion of a celebration at her home. Kavita does not have a registration or license from the FSSAI.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
What is the Compensation Act 2006 s 1 has what purpose...
PRINCIPLE A master is liable for the acts of his servant, a principal is liable for the acts of the agent, but a hirer of services is not liable for the acts of the independent contractor.
FACTS While implementing the request of Mr. Sampat, the confectioner at Ghantewali and Co. made the oil extra hot to make him a batch of extra crispy banana fritters, the oil sizzled on impact and burnt Dadabhoy who was standing nearby. He wants to know as to whom he should sue
A person is said to be vicariously liable when
Principle: One has to compensate another for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own negligence, This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence.
Facts: Veerappa owns a farm at a distance of half a furlong from the railway track. He stored in his land the stacks of dried up straw after the cultivation as is normal in farming. One day when the train was passing through the track, the driver was negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks stored by Veerappa and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Veerappa filed a suit against the Railways claiming damages. The Railways while acknowledging liability alleged contributory negligence on the part of Veerappa.
Principle: Where there is a transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of some other thing it is called an exchange, while the transfer of ownership for consideration of money is called a sale, whereas without consideration it becomes a gift.
Facts: 'A' transfers his house worth `50 lakh to 'B' for a shopping building worth the same amount, as consideration from 'B'.
Assertion (A): All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish or administer educational institutions of their choice.
Reason (R): Institutions established by the minorities are not entitled to governmental aid and government is not under an obligation to give aid.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Facts:
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?
