2002 PLP 956 (MLD)

PLD 1979 SC 890.

4. It is manifestly clear that the arrest and detention of the respondent‑plaintiff Pervaiz Akhtar was unlawful, which was declared as such by this Court. Pervaiz Akhtar was not borrower and the loan was advanced to his father against the mortgage of his land. The learned District Judge has rightly not relied upon the document Exh. D/6 (alleged surety) whereby plaintiff Pervaiz Akhtar bound himself to make the payment of outstanding amount within ten days. There were no details of any loan. There is substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the papers were got signed from the plaintiff when he was arrested and that the Bond allegedly executed by Pervaiz Akhtar was of no legal value because his arrest and detention has been declared as unlawful. Since the arrest and detention of Pervaiz Akhtar was without lawful authority by Nusrat Ali Shah petitioner, who was Tahsildar at the relevant time, therefore, said Pervaiz Akhtar was entitled for damages for his illegal arrest and detention. This brings me to the question of quantum of the damages to be awarded to Pervaiz Akhtar, plaintiff respondent. No doubt, while appearing as P.W.3 Pervaiz Akhtar has not corroborated the case which he has set up in para. 5 of the plaint, according to which he claimed the amount of damages as under:‑‑ (i) Expenses on litigation in High Court Rs.10,000 (ii) Business loss. Rs.6,000 (iii) Damages on account of mental torture Rs.8,000 Total: Rs.24,000 There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff was illegally detained and that. he was released by the orders of this Court. Pervaiz Akhtar while appearing as P.W.3, in his cross‑examination has categorically stated that he had maintained the accounts regarding the expenses of litigation in the High Court which was recovered from him by his brother (sic) amount of Rs.10,

000. Respondent remained in illegal detention for about one month. This Court while passing order dated 8‑12‑1993 (Exh. P.1) in Criminal Miscellaneous No.58‑H of 1993, observed as under: "In the above circumstances, the arrest and detention of the petitioner is declared to be illegal. Accordingly, the order dated 27‑1‑1993 passed by this Court is confirmed." There is evidence on the record that the respondent was doing business and he was at his shop when he was illegally arrested. His shop remained closed for about one month and in consequence of that he sustained loss. In this view of the matter, he has been able to prove the loss of Rs.6,00U' in business for one month. Regarding mental torture sustained by the respondent for his illegal detention, mental torture is natural consequence of the illegal detention of the respondent. A person, who has been arrested illegally and detained for one month without any legal justification, shall sustain mental torture. By "mental shock" is meant a shock to the moral or intellectual sense; by 'nervous shock', shock to the nerve and brain structures of the body. Natural consequence of the arrest is that the respondent sustained mental shock as there is no shock to the nervous or brain or structure of his body. The First Appellate Court has granted Rs.8,000 on account of mental torture, which amount is reduced to Rs.4,000 (Rupees four thousand). The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the damages have not been proved by producing evidence is repelled, because the respondent has claimed general damages which are to be awarded and which the law will imply in every violation of a legal right. They need not be proved by evidence, for they arise by inference of law, even though do actual pecuniary loss has been shown, General damages are such as the Court may give when any measure cannot be pointed out by which they are to be assessed, except the opinion of a reasonable man. It is established principle of law that whenever the defendant violates any absolute legal right of the plaintiff general damage to at least a nominal amount will be implied. See "English and Indian Law of Torts" by Ratanlal Ranchhoddas at page

110. As the respondent has proved the injury in result of his illegal detention, he is entitled for the general and special damages as follows:‑‑ (i) Expenses on litigation in High Court Rs.10,000 (ii) Business Loss Rs.6,000 (iii) Damages on account of mental torture Rs.4,000 Total: Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand). With the above modification, the judgment and decree of .the First Appellate Court are maintained. The suit of respondent Pervaiz Akhtar is decreed for the recovery of Rs.20,

000. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./N‑165/L Order accordingly