Step 1: Understand the principle of joint tort-feasors.
When two or more persons jointly commit a tort, they are known as joint tort-feasors. The law provides that the injured party can seek compensation from one, some, or all of them.
Step 2: Principle of liability.
Liability of joint tort-feasors is usually joint and several, meaning that each tort-feasor is independently liable for the entire damage as well as collectively with others.
Step 3: Application to the given statements.
- Statement 1: Correct. Compensation can be recovered from any one tort-feasor.
- Statement 2: Correct. The aggrieved party may recover from a few tort-feasors.
- Statement 3: Correct. Compensation can also be recovered from all of the tort-feasors.
✅ Correct Answer: Option 4 — All 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
Explanation: The principle ensures that the victim is not deprived of remedy due to the difficulty of proving individual contributions. Once compensation is paid, tort-feasors may adjust contributions among themselves through the principle of contribution.
Match List I (General Defences in Tort) with List II (Leading Cases) and select the correct answer:
| List I | List II | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| i. | Act of God | 1. | Nichols v. Marsland (1876) 2 Ex. D. 1 |
| ii. | Consent (Volenti non fit injuria) | 2. | Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) 1 KB 205 |
| iii. | Statutory Authority | 3. | Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail Co. (1860) 5 H & N 679 |
| iv. | Necessity | 4. | Kirk v. Gregory (1876) 1 Ex. D. 55 |
Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Provision} & \textbf{Case Law} \\ \hline \text{(A) Strict Liability} & \text{(1) Ryland v. Fletcher} \\ \hline \text{(B) Absolute Liability} & \text{(II) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India} \\ \hline \text{(C) Negligence} & \text{(III) Nicholas v. Marsland} \\ \hline \text{(D) Act of God} & \text{(IV) MCD v. Subhagwanti} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
| I. Arbitration of excepted matters | 1. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 |
| II. Conditional Arbitration Clauses | 2. In re - Interplay between Arb Agreements and Stamp Act 2023 INSC 1066 |
| III. Separability of Arbitration Agreement - Kompetenz Kompetenz | 3. Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd v. Maharaj Singh and Anr (1976) 1 SCC 943 |
| IV. Arbitrability of fraud | 4. Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co v. ONGC (2020) 3 SCC 222 |
| Offenses | Sections |
| (A) Voyeurism | (1) Section 77 |
| (B) Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman | (2) Section 79 |
| (C) Stalking | (3) Section 75 |
| (D) Sexual Harassment | (4) Section 78 |