nuisance

The word “nuisance” is derived from the French word “nuire,” which meaning “to injure, annoy, or cause harm.” Nuisance is derived from the Latin word “nocere,” which meaning “to hurt.” There is no precise definition of “nuisance” because it is based on the political, social, and economic factors that exist in that particular country, as well as the facts of the case. However, in tort law, causing “nuisance” is interfering excessively with a person’s rights connected to his property/land, or some other right over it, and causing damages to the plaintiff. Acts that are harmful to one’s health or interfere with one’s comfort or safety are instances. Noise, vibrations, gas, fire, electricity, disease-causing microorganisms, pollutants, excavation, and other factors might produce interference. Nuisance can be perpetrated both directly and indirectly. There are two types of nuisances: private nuisance and public nuisance. Public nuisance is a crime or can be defined as the interference with the right of the public in general and is punishable as an offence. Private nuisance or Tort of nuisance is available only when there is special or particular damage to plaintiff that is different from the harm inflicted upon the public in general.

Essentials of Nuisance

1. The plaintiff must have the right to own land and live in peace.

2. There must be an impediment to such enjoyment or usage.

3. The interference must be irrational.

4. Compensation for the plaintiff’s losses (Because of the interference there must be damage or loss or inconvenience or annoyance caused to the plaintiff).

Inconvenience must be of a substantial or tangible nature, according to the law. Simple personal discomfort does not qualify as a Nuisance. The tort is defined as unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land.

Public Nuisance

Private nuisance is a civil wrong, but public nuisance is a criminal. This is an action that interferes with a member’s or society’s enjoyment of a right. For example, the right to fresh air, a noise-free environment, the use of a public highway or canal, and so forth. A public nuisance is a criminal offence that the state can prosecute on behalf of the general public. Because it is a crime that can be prosecuted by the state upon receipt of a complaint, private parties who are harmed by it are unable to pursue civil or tort claims for damages. This is to avoid a situation in which every person who has been harmed by the nuisance files a lawsuit against the person who is generating the annoyance.

An individual, on the other hand, may sue for public nuisance only if he can show that he has incurred special harm or loss in addition to what other members of the public have endured. It must be a direct injury rather than a resultant harm. In order to avoid several lawsuits, it must also be demonstrated to be of a considerable nature. As a result, public nuisance is both a tort and a crime. These lawsuits are handled by or on behalf of the state.

Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, defines a public nuisance as “an act or illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance, to the people in general who dwell, or occupy the property, in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.”

Private Nuisance

Unauthorized use of another person’s property that causes harm but does not constitute trespass is referred to as a private nuisance. It’s basically when someone interferes with the use or enjoyment of land in a way that causes harm. Typically, private nuisance lawsuits develop between neighbours when one property owner is harmed by the actions of his or her neighbour.

It grants the afflicted person a “Right in Personam” claim. It affects a person in his or her individual capacity, necessitating a personal action for remedy. Noise, heat, smoke, vibrations, overhanging trees, playing loud music, and so on are all examples. If the defendant’s activity is justified in the legal use of his property, it is not actionable as a private nuisance. If the plaintiff is overly sensitive, the defendant will not be held accountable. Courts use the standard of a reasonable man as their standard or test. By claiming that the plaintiff got to the source of the annoyance, the defendant cannot avoid culpability.

A tort, or legal wrong, is a private nuisance. A court will consider three considerations when determining liability for an alleged nuisance: the defendant’s culpability, whether there has been a substantial interference with the plaintiff’s interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant’s behaviour. A civil action for damages or an injunction, or both, is the remedy for private nuisance.

Remedies to Nuisance

  1. Damages: The tort of nuisance is not actionable per-se. Unless loss or injury can be anticipated, the plaintiff must establish it.
  2. Injunction: The plaintiff may seek an order prohibiting the defendant from continuing the tortious activities, which the court may grant if the circumstances warrant it. It can only be sought from the court if it can be demonstrated that the injury complained of is such that it cannot be satisfactorily compensated due to its gravity, permanent nature, or both.
  3. Abatement: The term “abatement” refers to the eradication of a nuisance by the affected person. In this instance, the removal must be done in a calm manner without endangering anyone’s life. Prior notification should be given if it is necessary to remove the nuisance by entering on the land of another person’s property. A private individual will not be able to alleviate public annoyance. This is when the annoyance is removed, such as by cutting overhanging branches or roots. This right must be invoked within a reasonable amount of time, and it usually necessitates notification to the defendant as well as his refusal to act. The abatement may be used in a reasonable manner, and the plaintiff will be held guilty if his activities go beyond acceptable limits.

A person can only sue for nuisance if he owns the land in question. Unless he is vested with the management and control of the source of disturbance, a guest whose enjoyment of land is hindered with has no action in nuisance.

Conclusion

The concept of nuisance is prevalent in everyone’s daily lives; in reality, Indian courts have borrowed heavily from English principles as well as common law judgements, while also setting their own precedents. This has aided the development of the notion of nuisance in the field of law, ensuring the fairness and well-being of all parties involved, such as in the case of private nuisance, the individual who is harmed, as well as in the case of public nuisance, when the entire society is affected.

Only when plaintiff suffers distinctive or particular suffering that is distinct from the harm imposed on the general public is a nuisance tort available. It is the use of one’s property in an unreasonable, unjustified, or unlawful manner that substantially interferes with the enjoyment or use of another’s property. The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions interfered unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of someone’s property, or caused physical discomfort or harm to their health. The nuisance statute is essentially unwritten. The issue of annoyance is one that emerges frequently in a man’s day-to-day existence, and decisions about it must be made on a case-by-case basis to ensure that neither the aggrieved plaintiff nor the defendant is penalised needlessly. The plaintiff’s sensitivity will not make the act a nuisance.

Nuisance is not actionable by itself, which means the plaintiff must show that the loss he has incurred is of unique significance to him in order to recover damages from the perpetrator. The Civil court will dismiss his claim if he fails to prove that he did not suffer any such exceptional or particular harm.

This has resulted in the development of a competent legal system that ensures the justice and well-being of all parties involved, as well as society at large.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.