{"id":542,"date":"2021-07-19T10:05:28","date_gmt":"2021-07-19T04:35:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/?p=542"},"modified":"2026-10-25T21:19:40","modified_gmt":"2026-10-25T15:49:40","slug":"legal-maxim-of-the-day-34","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/","title":{"rendered":"Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Meaning, Essentials, Exceptions, Case Law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Meaning in Hindi"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Volenti non fit injuria<\/strong> is a Latin legal maxim that literally means <strong>\u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d<\/strong>. In plain words: if you knowingly and freely accept a risk, you cannot later sue the person who exposed you to that risk for the harm it causes. The Delhi High Court has described it as a principle of tort law under which, \u201cwhere the plaintiff is aware of the risk(s) of an act and assents to it regardless, any damage arising from such act, cannot give rise to a successful plea for violation of a civil right and consequently, a valid claim for compensation\u201d (<em>Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India<\/em>, 2017). The Supreme Court, quoting Winfield on Tort, listed it as the first of seven common-law defences to strict liability: \u201cConsent of the plaintiff i.e. volenti non fit injuria\u201d (<em>Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance<\/em>, 2001).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defence is narrow: it \u201ccomes down to a correct assessment of what risk the plaintiff assents to\u201d and does not cover the other side\u2019s negligence. In criminal law, consent is a defence only within Sections 25 to 30 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), formerly Sections 87 to 92 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"clf-keyfacts\" style=\"border:1px solid #d9d2c5;background:#faf7f2;border-radius:6px;padding:14px 18px;margin:0 0 24px\">\n<p style=\"margin:0 0 8px;font-weight:700\">Volenti non fit injuria at a glance<\/p>\n<ul style=\"margin:0;padding-left:20px\">\n<li><strong>Meaning:<\/strong> literally \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d; as the Delhi High Court explained in <em>Kaila<\/em> (2017), a person who knowingly accepts a risk cannot claim compensation for harm within that risk.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Essentials:<\/strong> awareness of the risk, agreement to run it, and harm that falls within the risk accepted \u2013 \u201cwhat risk the plaintiff assents to\u201d (<em>Kaila<\/em>, para 30).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Knowledge is not consent to negligence:<\/strong> a spectator who knows a sport is risky has not \u201cconsented to, negligence by the organisers\u201d (<em>White v. Blackmore<\/em>, as quoted in <em>Kaila<\/em>, para 36).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Strict liability:<\/strong> \u201cConsent of the plaintiff i.e. volenti non fit injuria\u201d is the first of seven defences in Winfield\u2019s list adopted by the Supreme Court (<em>Kaushnuma Begum<\/em>, 2001).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Motor accidents:<\/strong> for the fixed compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act (\u20b95 lakh for death, \u20b92.5 lakh for grievous hurt), no fault need be proved.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Crime \u2013 BNS:<\/strong> Sections 25\u201330 BNS (formerly 87\u201392 IPC) allow consent as a defence only within limits; under Section 28, consent is not valid if given under fear of injury or a misconception of fact that the doer knows or has reason to believe about, by a person who through unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot understand what he consents to, or (unless the context shows otherwise) by a child under twelve.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Death:<\/strong> consent never makes intentional killing lawful; an adult\u2019s consent only reduces murder to culpable homicide (Exception 5, Section 101 BNS).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Contributory negligence is different:<\/strong> it is the claimant\u2019s own failure to take reasonable care; in <em>Pramodkumar Jhaveri<\/em> (2002) the High Court had made a 30% \u201cproportionate deduction\u201d (set aside by the Supreme Court, which found no contributory negligence) \u2013 a reduction, not a complete bar.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi \u2013 October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is quoted from India Code (as on 6 October 2025) and its official Hindi text, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from India Code (as on 15 August 2026) and the Code on Social Security, 2020 from India Code (as on 21 November 2025; Sections 74 and 164 in force from 21 November 2025 by S.O. 5319(E)); the judgments are quoted from the official copies of the Supreme Court (api.sci.gov.in) and the Delhi High Court (delhihighcourt.nic.in).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Volenti non fit injuria meaning<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Word for word, <em>volenti<\/em> means \u201cto one who is willing\u201d, <em>non fit<\/em> means \u201cis not done\u201d and <em>injuria<\/em> means a legal injury or wrong. Put together: to a willing person, no legal wrong is done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Delhi High Court\u2019s Division Bench explained it most fully in <em>Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India<\/em> (W.P.(C) 3414\/2013, 2 May 2017). It quoted the classic English statement from <em>Smith v. Charles Baker and Sons<\/em> (1891): \u201cThe maxim of volenti non fit injuria is based on good sense and justice. One who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The maxim is a defence raised by the person being sued. If it succeeds, the claim for that harm fails, even though the harm was real. For other Latin phrases used in Indian courts, see the firm\u2019s guide to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxims-explained\/\">legal maxims explained<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Volenti non fit injuria in simple words, with examples<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Delhi High Court gave the everyday example: \u201cIn a game of cricket, for instance, an injury caused to a spectator by a stray ball slammed for a boundary will not give rise to an actionable cause as such a risk is inherent and indivisible from the essential nature of the game.\u201d The spectator chose to watch and accepted that risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The BNS uses a similar sporting example for crime. Section 25\u2019s illustration says: \u201cA and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.\u201d Consent covers the fair risks of the game, not foul play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Essentials of volenti non fit injuria<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Reading the Delhi High Court\u2019s explanation in <em>Kaila<\/em> (paras 30, 36 and 38), three things must be shown before the defence works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Knowledge of the risk.<\/strong> The plaintiff must be \u201caware of the risk(s) of an act\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Agreement to run it.<\/strong> The plaintiff must accept the risk \u2013 in the Court\u2019s words, \u201cassents to it regardless\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Harm within the accepted risk.<\/strong> The harm must come from the risk actually accepted: the \u201cincidental and necessary and forseeable risks that are a natural function of or related to the act in question\u201d (spelling as in the judgment). A different, avoidable risk is not covered.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Knowledge is not the same as consent (scienti non fit injuria)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cScienti non fit injuria\u201d (mere knowledge bars a claim) is not a phrase used in the official judgments opened for this post, and the Delhi High Court rejected the idea: in <em>Kaila<\/em> it adopted the distinction drawn in the English case <em>White v. Blackmore<\/em> (1972): \u201cThus a spectator\u2019s knowledge that a particular sporting event involves an element of risk does not mean that he is aware of, and thereby consented to, negligence by the organisers in respect of the safety arrangements.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How Indian courts apply the defence: case law<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Workplace risk: Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2017)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An Indian Air Force Wing Commander had to eject from a MiG-21 that caught fire after take-off in January 2005. The Court recorded that investigations found \u201ca fatigue crack in the welded portion of the after burner manifold leading to a fire\u201d; RTI replies had attributed it to \u201cpoor workmanship\u201d by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which HAL disputed. The Union and HAL argued that \u201cfighter pilots assent to the inherent risks of flying\u201d, so they were not liable. The Division Bench (S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma JJ.) said this argument \u201cresembles closely, the concept of Volenti Non Fit Injuria\u201d, and rejected it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A pilot accepts \u201cmere general wear and tear\u201d of an airworthy aircraft: \u201cThis would rightly fall under the risk a pilot assents to.\u201d But \u201cA manufacturing defect or a defect attributable to less than standard maintenance, which is avoidable and compromises the strength of an aircraft however, is altogether different\u201d. That, the Court held, \u201cis a risk that no pilot consents to implicitly as a function of her or his job description.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case was a writ petition \u2013 the Court said its discussion was \u201cone for the violation of a fundamental right and not a civil action for tort\u201d \u2013 and this post relies on it only for its explanation of the maxim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Strict liability and motor accidents: Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance (Supreme Court, 2001)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A jeep\u2019s tyre burst and the capsizing jeep killed a pedestrian; the Tribunal found no negligence and dismissed the main claim. The Supreme Court (K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi JJ., 3 January 2001) held that \u201cNegligence is only one of the species of the causes of action\u201d in motor accident claims, and adopted the rule of strict liability in <em>Rylands v. Fletcher<\/em> for such claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Quoting Winfield on Tort, the Court listed \u201cseven defences recognised in common law\u201d against strict liability: \u201c(1) Consent of the plaintiff i.e. volenti non fit injuria\u201d, then common benefit, act of stranger, statutory authority, act of God, default of the plaintiff and remoteness of consequences. It held that a victim \u201cis entitled to get compensation from a Tribunal unless any one of the exceptions would apply.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which the judgment discussed, was omitted with effect from 1 April 2022; the present rule is Section 164. See the firm\u2019s guide to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/motor-accident-claims-tribunals-mact\/\">Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Rescue cases: Urmila Devi v. MCD (Delhi High Court, 2016)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Lalu Chauhan, aged 25, saw two children drowning in an uncovered drain (ganda nala) in Mangolpuri after their rickshaw overturned. He jumped in, saved one child, and died with the other. His widow\u2019s counsel argued that \u201ca rescue case even otherwise has to be treated differently\u201d and that a person who \u201cvoluntarily rescues somebody from an imminent danger created by the wrongful act of the opposite party \u2026 cannot be met with the defence of volenti non fit injuria.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court (Indermeet Kaur J., 3 November 2016) found the drain had no barricading, held the Government of NCT of Delhi (Irrigation and Flood Control Department) \u201cliable for this unfortunate incident\u201d, and awarded the widow \u20b95,64,120. It did not separately rule on the volenti argument, so the case is not a ruling that rescuers can never face the defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"clf-figure clf-ig\" style=\"margin:0 0 24px;padding:14px 12px;border:1px solid #e3e3e3;border-radius:6px;background:#fff\">\n<style>.entry-content .clf-ig,.entry-content .clf-ig *{box-sizing:border-box}.entry-content .clf-ig{max-width:100%;overflow:hidden}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-title{display:block;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;font-size:1em;line-height:1.35;margin:0 0 4px;text-align:center;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-sub{display:block;font-size:.82em;line-height:1.4;color:#555;margin:0 0 12px;text-align:center;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(160px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid2{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(240px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-grid3{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(200px,100%),1fr));gap:10px;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-box{min-width:0;background:#faf7f2;border:1.5px solid #b9a98c;border-radius:8px;padding:10px 12px;font-size:.88em;line-height:1.45;color:#222;overflow-wrap:anywhere;word-break:normal;hyphens:auto;margin:0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-h{display:block;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;margin:0 0 3px;font-size:1.02em;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-s{display:block;color:#6b5f4b;font-size:.86em;margin:4px 0 0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-red{background:#fdeeee;border-color:#c98585}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-green{background:#eef6ee;border-color:#86a986}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-blue{background:#eef3fa;border-color:#8aa3c4}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-dark{background:#1f2d3d;border-color:#1f2d3d;color:#fff;text-align:center}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-dark .ig-h{color:#fff;font-size:1.15em}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-arrow{display:block;text-align:center;color:#8a7a5c;font-size:1.3em;line-height:1;margin:0 0 10px}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-label{display:block;text-align:center;font-weight:700;color:#1f2d3d;font-size:.9em;margin:0 0 6px;overflow-wrap:anywhere}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-step{display:inline-block;min-width:1.6em;padding:0 .35em;margin:0 .35em 0 0;border-radius:1em;background:#1f2d3d;color:#fff;font-size:.8em;text-align:center;line-height:1.6em}.entry-content .clf-ig ul.ig-list{margin:0;padding:0 0 0 1.1em;list-style:disc}.entry-content .clf-ig ul.ig-list li{margin:0 0 4px;padding:0;font-size:inherit;line-height:1.45}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-note{display:block;font-size:.8em;line-height:1.4;color:#555;margin:4px 0 0}.entry-content .clf-ig .ig-cap{margin:10px 0 0;font-size:13px;color:#555;overflow-wrap:anywhere}<\/style><span class=\"ig-title\">Does the volenti defence apply? Four questions<\/span>\n<span class=\"ig-sub\">Civil claims for compensation \u2013 as explained by the Delhi High Court in Kaila (2017)<\/span>\n<div class=\"ig-grid\">\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">1<\/span>Knew the risk?<\/span>The injured person must have been aware of the risk of the act.<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">2<\/span>Freely agreed?<\/span>They must have accepted it, expressly or by conduct. Knowing alone is not enough.<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">3<\/span>Same risk?<\/span>The harm must come from the risk accepted \u2013 not from avoidable negligence.<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box\"><span class=\"ig-h\"><span class=\"ig-step\">4<\/span>Statute says otherwise?<\/span>Some laws pay without proof of fault, e.g. Section 164 MV Act; Section 74 Social Security Code.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<span class=\"ig-arrow\">\u2193<\/span>\n<div class=\"ig-grid2\">\n<div class=\"ig-box ig-green\"><span class=\"ig-h\">All yes (1\u20133), no statute<\/span>The claim for that harm fails: it \u201ccannot give rise to \u2026 a valid claim for compensation\u201d.<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box ig-red\"><span class=\"ig-h\">Any \u201cno\u201d<\/span>The defence fails. The claim is decided on negligence or strict liability; the claimant\u2019s own carelessness may reduce the award.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"ig-box ig-blue\"><span class=\"ig-h\">Criminal cases are different<\/span>Consent is tested under Sections 25\u201330 BNS, which have their own age limits and exclusions.<\/div>\n<p class=\"ig-cap\">Prepared by Century Law Firm from Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2 May 2017, paras 30, 36, 38), Pramodkumar Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak (Supreme Court, 2002), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, s.164, the Code on Social Security, 2020, s.74 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss.25\u201330 (official texts).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Limits and exceptions to volenti non fit injuria<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the sources opened for this post, the defence does not cover negligence outside the risk accepted (<em>Kaila<\/em>, quoting <em>White v. Blackmore<\/em>) or an avoidable defect in equipment the injured person does not control (<em>Kaila<\/em>, paras 36 and 38). Statutory no-fault schemes (Section 164, Motor Vehicles Act; Section 74, Code on Social Security) do not require proof of fault, and in criminal law Section 28 BNS decides when consent is not valid \u2013 all explained below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Volenti non fit injuria in the BNS (formerly IPC): Sections 25 to 30<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Neither the IPC nor the BNS names the maxim. The rules on consent as a defence to a crime are in Chapter III (General Exceptions) of the BNS, Sections 25 to 30, which correspond to Sections 87 to 92 of the IPC. The firm\u2019s Gazette-checked comparison records \u201cNo change\u201d for each pair, except that Section 27 replaces the words \u201cinsane person\u201d with \u201cperson of unsound mind\u201d. The BNS came into force on 1 July 2024 (notification S.O. 850(E)); under Section 358 BNS, the repeal of the IPC does not affect any penalty or punishment incurred, or proceedings, for offences committed against the IPC. To compare any other section, use the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-code-comparison-tool\/\">IPC to BNS section comparison tool<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>BNS (old IPC)<\/th><th>Rule in short<\/th><th>Main limit<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Section 25 (formerly 87 IPC)<\/td><td>Harm to a person above eighteen who consented, express or implied, to suffer it or to take its risk is not an offence.<\/td><td>Only for acts not intended, and not known to be likely, to cause death or grievous hurt.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 26 (formerly 88 IPC)<\/td><td>Harm done in good faith for a person\u2019s benefit, with consent, is not an offence \u2013 even if death is a known risk.<\/td><td>The act must not be intended to cause death.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 27 (formerly 89 IPC)<\/td><td>A guardian (or person in lawful charge) may consent for a child under twelve or a person of unsound mind, for that person\u2019s benefit.<\/td><td>Never covers intentional death; limited cover for acts likely to cause death or grievous hurt.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 28 (formerly 90 IPC)<\/td><td>Defines when consent is not consent.<\/td><td>Fear of injury or misconception of fact (if known to the doer); unsoundness of mind or intoxication (if unable to understand); child under twelve (unless context shows otherwise).<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 29 (formerly 91 IPC)<\/td><td>Sections 25\u201327 do not apply to acts that are offences independently of harm.<\/td><td>Example in the Act: causing miscarriage.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 30 (formerly 92 IPC)<\/td><td>Harm done in good faith for a person\u2019s benefit without consent, where consent cannot be obtained in time, is not an offence.<\/td><td>Never covers intentional death; hurt only to prevent death or hurt; \u201cMere pecuniary benefit is not benefit\u201d.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Section 25 BNS: consent to harm short of death or grievous hurt<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 25 is the closest statutory equivalent of the maxim. It says: \u201cNothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Sections 26, 27 and 30 BNS: good faith and benefit (medical cases)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 26 goes further: an act done in good faith for the person\u2019s benefit, with consent, is no offence even if death is a known risk, provided death is not intended. The illustration is the surgeon who knows \u201cthat a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z\u201d but, intending Z\u2019s benefit, operates with Z\u2019s consent: \u201cA has committed no offence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Section 27 lets a guardian consent for a child under twelve or a person of unsound mind, and Section 30 covers emergencies \u2013 its illustrations include a surgeon operating on an injured child when \u201cThere is no time to apply to the child\u2019s guardian\u201d. Neither covers the intentional causing of death or the attempt to cause it (proviso (a) to each section).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Section 28 BNS: when consent is not consent<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under Section 28, a consent is not valid \u201c(a) if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or (b) if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or (c) unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Consent and death: Exception 5 to Section 101 BNS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Consent never makes intentional killing lawful. Sections 25 and 26 exclude acts intended to cause death. The only effect of an adult\u2019s consent is in Exception 5 to Section 101 BNS (formerly Section 300 IPC): \u201cCulpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.\u201d The offence is then culpable homicide not amounting to murder \u2013 still punishable \u2013 and the exception applies only where the person who dies is above eighteen \u2013 the illustration says a child, on account of his youth, was \u201cincapable of giving consent to his own death\u201d. See the firm\u2019s explainer on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/murder-and-culpable-homicide\/\">murder and culpable homicide<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence: the difference<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Volenti is about agreement. If it succeeds, the harm \u201ccannot give rise to \u2026 a valid claim for compensation\u201d (<em>Kaila<\/em>, para 30). Contributory negligence is about carelessness. The Supreme Court explained in <em>Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak<\/em> (5 August 2002): \u201cThe question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant\u2019s part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as \u2018negligence.\u2019 \u2026 It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an \u2018author of his own wrong.\u2019\u201d In that case the High Court had found 30% contributory negligence and made a \u201cproportionate deduction\u201d from the compensation; the Supreme Court set that finding aside and restored the full amount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Winfield\u2019s list adopted in <em>Kaushnuma Begum<\/em> treats \u201cConsent of the plaintiff\u201d and \u201cDefault of the plaintiff\u201d (damage caused \u201csolely\u201d by the plaintiff) as separate defences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Volenti in motor accident and workplace claims today<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Motor accident claims: Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Since 1 April 2022 the Motor Vehicles Act\u2019s no-fault rule is Section 164 (in Chapter XI as substituted by the 2019 amendment). Section 164(1) makes the owner or the authorised insurer liable to pay, for death or grievous hurt in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, \u201ca sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt\u201d. Section 164(2) says the claimant \u201cshall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt \u2026 was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.\u201d A sub-section (4) added with effect from 15 August 2026 says ex gratia payments are not to be deducted from this compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In a claim based on fault, the Tribunal decides negligence and any contributory negligence on the evidence (<em>Pramodkumar<\/em>), or strict liability unless an exception such as consent applies (<em>Kaushnuma Begum<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Workers: the Code on Social Security, 2020<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For employees, compensation for injury at work is statutory. Section 74 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 came into force on 21 November 2025 (notification S.O. 5319(E)). On the same date the Code repealed the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923 (Section 164(1), item 1), and India Code now records that Act as \u201cRep., Act 36 of 2020\u201d. The Employers\u2019 Liability Act, 1938 is recorded as repealed by Act 23 of 2016. Section 74(1) of the Code makes the employer liable where personal injury is caused to an employee \u201cby accident or an occupational disease listed in the Third Schedule arising out of and in the course of his employment\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The proviso to Section 74(1) lists when the employer is not liable: injury not disabling the employee for more than three days, and injury \u201cnot resulting in death or permanent total disablement\u201d caused by an accident directly attributable to the employee being under the influence of drink or drugs, wilful disobedience of an express safety order or rule, or wilful removal or disregard of a safety guard. Section 74 does not mention consent or the volenti maxim, and under Section 74(7) an employee who claims compensation before the competent authority cannot also sue for damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">\u0935\u0949\u0932\u0947\u0902\u091f\u0940 \u0928\u0949\u0928 \u092b\u093f\u091f \u0907\u0902\u091c\u0941\u0930\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093e \u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925 \u2013 \u0939\u093f\u0902\u0926\u0940 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u093e\u0930\u093e\u0902\u0936 (Summary in Hindi)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>\u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925:<\/strong> <em>Volenti non fit injuria<\/em> (\u0935\u0949\u0932\u0947\u0902\u091f\u0940 \u0928\u0949\u0928 \u092b\u093f\u091f \u0907\u0902\u091c\u0941\u0930\u093f\u092f\u093e) \u090f\u0915 \u0932\u0948\u091f\u093f\u0928 \u0935\u093f\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0938\u0942\u0924\u094d\u0930 \u0939\u0948, \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0915\u093e \u0936\u093e\u092c\u094d\u0926\u093f\u0915 \u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925 \u0939\u0948 \u2013 \u201c\u0907\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0941\u0915 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0915\u094d\u0937\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u0940\u201d; \u0938\u0930\u0932 \u0936\u092c\u094d\u0926\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 (\u092b\u0930\u094d\u092e \u0915\u093e \u0905\u092a\u0928\u093e \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0935\u093e\u0926) \u2013 \u091c\u094b \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0947\u091a\u094d\u091b\u093e \u0938\u0947 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0940\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948, \u0909\u0938\u0915\u0947 \u0938\u093e\u0925 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0935\u093f\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u094d\u0937\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u0940\u0964 \u092f\u0926\u093f \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0915\u094b \u091c\u093e\u0928\u0924\u0947 \u0939\u0941\u090f \u0905\u092a\u0928\u0940 \u0907\u091a\u094d\u091b\u093e \u0938\u0947 \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0940\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948, \u0924\u094b \u0909\u0938\u0940 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0938\u0947 \u0939\u0941\u0908 \u0939\u093e\u0928\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0935\u0939 \u092c\u093e\u0926 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0930 (\u092e\u0941\u0906\u0935\u091c\u0947) \u0915\u093e \u0926\u093e\u0935\u093e \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0915\u0930 \u0938\u0915\u0924\u093e\u0964 \u092f\u0939 \u0916\u0902\u0921 \u092b\u0930\u094d\u092e \u0915\u093e \u0905\u092a\u0928\u093e \u0938\u093e\u0930\u093e\u0902\u0936 \u0939\u0948; \u0907\u0938 \u0932\u0948\u091f\u093f\u0928 \u0938\u0942\u0924\u094d\u0930 \u0915\u093e \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0906\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0915 \u0939\u093f\u0902\u0926\u0940 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0935\u093e\u0926 \u0939\u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0938\u094d\u0930\u094b\u0924 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u092e\u093f\u0932\u093e\u0964 \u0909\u0926\u094d\u0927\u0930\u0923-\u091a\u093f\u0939\u094d\u0928\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0926\u093f\u090f \u0917\u090f \u092d\u093e\u0930\u0924\u0940\u092f \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f \u0938\u0902\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e, 2023 \u0915\u0947 \u0936\u092c\u094d\u0926 \u0909\u0938\u0915\u0947 \u0906\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0915 \u0939\u093f\u0902\u0926\u0940 \u092a\u093e\u0920 (\u092d\u093e\u0930\u0924 \u0915\u093e \u0930\u093e\u091c\u092a\u0924\u094d\u0930) \u0938\u0947 \u0939\u0948\u0902\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>\u0906\u0935\u0936\u094d\u092f\u0915 \u0924\u0924\u094d\u0935:<\/strong> \u0926\u093f\u0932\u094d\u0932\u0940 \u0909\u091a\u094d\u091a \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u0928\u0947 <em>\u0938\u0902\u091c\u0940\u0924 \u0938\u093f\u0902\u0939 \u0915\u0948\u0932\u093e \u092c\u0928\u093e\u092e \u092d\u093e\u0930\u0924 \u0938\u0902\u0918<\/em> (2 \u092e\u0908 2017) \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u092e\u091d\u093e\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093f \u092f\u0939 \u092c\u091a\u093e\u0935 \u0924\u092d\u0940 \u091a\u0932\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948 \u091c\u092c \u092a\u0940\u0921\u093c\u093f\u0924 \u0915\u094b \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0925\u0940, \u0909\u0938\u0928\u0947 \u0909\u0938 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0915\u094b \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0940\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0925\u093e, \u0914\u0930 \u0939\u093e\u0928\u093f \u0909\u0938\u0940 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0938\u0947 \u0939\u0941\u0908\u0964 \u0915\u0947\u0935\u0932 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940, \u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u092a\u0915\u094d\u0937 \u0915\u0940 \u0932\u093e\u092a\u0930\u0935\u093e\u0939\u0940 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0938\u0939\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0915\u094d\u0930\u093f\u0915\u0947\u091f \u0915\u0947 \u0926\u0930\u094d\u0936\u0915 \u0915\u094b \u092c\u093e\u0909\u0902\u0921\u094d\u0930\u0940 \u0915\u0940 \u0917\u0947\u0902\u0926 \u0938\u0947 \u091a\u094b\u091f \u0932\u0917\u0947 \u0924\u094b \u0926\u093e\u0935\u093e \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u092c\u0928\u0924\u093e, \u092a\u0930 \u0906\u092f\u094b\u091c\u0915\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0940 \u0938\u0941\u0930\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093e-\u0935\u094d\u092f\u0935\u0938\u094d\u0925\u093e \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0932\u093e\u092a\u0930\u0935\u093e\u0939\u0940 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0909\u0938\u0928\u0947 \u0938\u0939\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0926\u0940 \u0939\u0948\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>\u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u0914\u0930 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0930:<\/strong> <em>\u0915\u094c\u0936\u0928\u0941\u092e\u093e \u092c\u0947\u0917\u092e<\/em> (2001) \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u0930\u094d\u0935\u094b\u091a\u094d\u091a \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093f\u0928\u092b\u0940\u0932\u094d\u0921 \u0915\u0940 \u092a\u0941\u0938\u094d\u0924\u0915 \u0938\u0947 \u0909\u0926\u094d\u0927\u0943\u0924 \u0938\u093e\u0924 \u092c\u091a\u093e\u0935\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u093e \u092c\u091a\u093e\u0935 \u0935\u093e\u0926\u0940 \u0915\u0940 \u0938\u0939\u092e\u0924\u093f (Consent of the plaintiff) \u092c\u0924\u093e\u092f\u093e, \u091c\u094b \u0915\u0920\u094b\u0930 \u0926\u093e\u092f\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0935 \u0915\u0947 \u0935\u093f\u0930\u0941\u0926\u094d\u0927 \u0909\u092a\u0932\u092c\u094d\u0927 \u0939\u0948\u0902\u0964 \u0905\u0902\u0936\u0926\u093e\u092f\u0940 \u0909\u092a\u0947\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093e (contributory negligence) \u0905\u0932\u0917 \u0938\u093f\u0926\u094d\u0927\u093e\u0902\u0924 \u0939\u0948 \u2013 <em>\u092a\u094d\u0930\u092e\u094b\u0926\u0915\u0941\u092e\u093e\u0930 \u091d\u0935\u0947\u0930\u0940<\/em> (2002) \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0909\u091a\u094d\u091a \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u0928\u0947 \u092a\u0940\u0921\u093c\u093f\u0924 \u0915\u0940 \u0905\u0938\u093e\u0935\u0927\u093e\u0928\u0940 \u092e\u093e\u0928\u0915\u0930 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0930 \u092e\u0947\u0902 30% \u0915\u0940 \u0906\u0928\u0941\u092a\u093e\u0924\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u091f\u094c\u0924\u0940 \u0915\u0940 \u0925\u0940, \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0947 \u0938\u0930\u094d\u0935\u094b\u091a\u094d\u091a \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u0928\u0947 \u0924\u0925\u094d\u092f\u094b\u0902 \u092a\u0930 \u0905\u0902\u0936\u0926\u093e\u092f\u0940 \u0909\u092a\u0947\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093e \u0928 \u092a\u093e\u0924\u0947 \u0939\u0941\u090f \u0939\u091f\u093e \u0926\u093f\u092f\u093e\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>\u092d\u093e\u0930\u0924\u0940\u092f \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f \u0938\u0902\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e:<\/strong> \u0938\u0902\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0907\u0938 \u0938\u0942\u0924\u094d\u0930 \u0915\u0947 \u0928\u093e\u092e \u0938\u0947 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0938\u0939\u092e\u0924\u093f (\u0906\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0915 \u0936\u092c\u094d\u0926 \u201c\u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f\u201d) \u0938\u0947 \u091c\u0941\u0921\u093c\u0947 \u0905\u092a\u0935\u093e\u0926 \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 25 \u0938\u0947 30 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0939\u0948\u0902 (\u092a\u0939\u0932\u0947 \u092d\u093e\u0930\u0924\u0940\u092f \u0926\u0902\u0921 \u0938\u0902\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e \u0915\u0940 \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 87 \u0938\u0947 92)\u0964 \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 25 \u0915\u093e \u092a\u093e\u0930\u094d\u0936\u094d\u0935 \u0936\u0940\u0930\u094d\u0937\u0915 \u0939\u0948 \u2013 \u201c\u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0938\u0947 \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0917\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093e\u0930\u094d\u092f \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0938\u0947 \u092e\u0943\u0924\u094d\u092f\u0941 \u092f\u093e \u0918\u094b\u0930 \u0909\u092a\u0939\u0924\u093f \u0915\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0924 \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u093e \u0906\u0936\u092f \u0928 \u0939\u094b \u0914\u0930 \u0928 \u0909\u0938\u0915\u0940 \u0938\u0902\u092d\u093e\u0935\u094d\u092f\u0924\u093e \u0915\u093e \u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e\u0928 \u0939\u094b \u0964\u201d \u092f\u0939 \u091b\u0942\u091f \u201c\u0905\u0920\u093e\u0930\u0939 \u0935\u0930\u094d\u0937 \u0938\u0947 \u0905\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0906\u092f\u0941 \u0915\u0947 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f\u201d \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0939\u0948, \u201c\u091c\u093f\u0938\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u0939 \u0905\u092a\u0939\u093e\u0928\u093f \u0938\u0939\u0928 \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u0940 \u091a\u093e\u0939\u0947 \u0905\u092d\u093f\u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u092f\u093e \u0935\u093f\u0935\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093f\u0924 \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0926\u0947 \u0926\u0940 \u0939\u094b\u201d\u0964 \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 26 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0915\u0947 \u092b\u093e\u092f\u0926\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0938\u0926\u094d\u092d\u093e\u0935\u092a\u0942\u0930\u094d\u0935\u0915, \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0938\u0947 \u0915\u093f\u092f\u093e \u0917\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093e\u0930\u094d\u092f (\u091c\u0948\u0938\u0947 \u0936\u0932\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0930\u093f\u092f\u093e) \u0905\u092a\u0930\u093e\u0927 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u0948, \u092f\u0926\u093f \u092e\u0943\u0924\u094d\u092f\u0941 \u0915\u093e \u0906\u0936\u092f \u0928 \u0939\u094b; \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 27 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u0902\u0930\u0915\u094d\u0937\u0915 \u092c\u093e\u0930\u0939 \u0935\u0930\u094d\u0937 \u0938\u0947 \u0915\u092e \u0906\u092f\u0941 \u0915\u0947 \u0936\u093f\u0936\u0941 \u092f\u093e \u0935\u093f\u0915\u0943\u0924\u091a\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0924 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0926\u0947 \u0938\u0915\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948; \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 30 \u0906\u092a\u093e\u0924 \u0938\u094d\u0925\u093f\u0924\u093f \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u0938\u0926\u094d\u092d\u093e\u0935\u092a\u0942\u0930\u094d\u0935\u0915 \u0915\u093f\u090f \u0917\u090f \u0915\u093e\u0930\u094d\u092f \u0915\u094b \u092c\u091a\u093e\u0924\u0940 \u0939\u0948\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>\u0915\u092c \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f, \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u0948:<\/strong> \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 28 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u201c\u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0910\u0938\u0940 \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u0948, \u091c\u0948\u0938\u0940 \u0907\u0938 \u0938\u0902\u0939\u093f\u0924\u093e \u0915\u0940 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e \u0938\u0947 \u0906\u0936\u092f\u093f\u0924 \u0939\u0948\u201d \u2013 \u092f\u0926\u093f \u0935\u0939 \u201c\u0915\u094d\u0937\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u092d\u092f \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0927\u0940\u0928, \u092f\u093e \u0924\u0925\u094d\u092f \u0915\u0947 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u092d\u094d\u0930\u092e \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0927\u0940\u0928\u201d \u0926\u0940 \u0917\u0908 \u0939\u094b \u0914\u0930 \u0915\u093e\u0930\u094d\u092f \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093e\u0932\u093e \u092f\u0939 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u0924\u093e \u0939\u094b, \u092f\u093e \u091a\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0924-\u0935\u093f\u0915\u0943\u0924\u093f \u092f\u093e \u092e\u0924\u094d\u0924\u0924\u093e \u0915\u0947 \u0915\u093e\u0930\u0923 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092a\u0930\u093f\u0923\u093e\u092e \u0938\u092e\u091d\u0928\u0947 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0905\u0938\u092e\u0930\u094d\u0925 \u0939\u094b, \u092f\u093e \u092c\u093e\u0930\u0939 \u0935\u0930\u094d\u0937 \u0938\u0947 \u0915\u092e \u0906\u092f\u0941 \u0915\u093e \u092c\u091a\u094d\u091a\u093e \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0926\u0947 (\u091c\u092c \u0924\u0915 \u0915\u093f \u0938\u0902\u0926\u0930\u094d\u092d \u0938\u0947 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0942\u0932 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u0940\u0924 \u0928 \u0939\u094b)\u0964 \u0938\u0939\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0938\u0947 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u092c\u0942\u091d\u0915\u0930 \u0939\u0924\u094d\u092f\u093e \u0935\u0948\u0927 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u0940; \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 101 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u092a\u0935\u093e\u0926 5 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u201c\u0906\u092a\u0930\u093e\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u092e\u093e\u0928\u0935 \u0935\u0927 \u0939\u0924\u094d\u092f\u093e \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u0948, \u092f\u0926\u093f \u0935\u0939 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0915\u0940 \u092e\u0943\u0924\u094d\u092f\u0941 \u0915\u093e\u0930\u093f\u0924 \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0924\u0940 \u0939\u0948, \u0905\u0920\u093e\u0930\u0939 \u0935\u0930\u094d\u0937 \u0938\u0947 \u0905\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0906\u092f\u0941 \u0915\u093e \u0939\u094b\u0924\u0947 \u0939\u0941\u090f, \u0905\u092a\u0928\u0940 \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0938\u0947 \u092e\u0943\u0924\u094d\u092f\u0941 \u0939\u094b\u0928\u093e \u0938\u0939\u0928 \u0915\u0930\u0947, \u092f\u093e \u092e\u0943\u0924\u094d\u092f\u0941 \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0909\u0920\u093e\u090f \u0964\u201d \u2013 \u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925\u093e\u0924\u094d \u0905\u092a\u0930\u093e\u0927 \u092b\u093f\u0930 \u092d\u0940 \u0926\u0902\u0921\u0928\u0940\u092f \u0930\u0939\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"schema-faq wp-block-yoast-faq-block\"><div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-1\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What is the meaning of volenti non fit injuria?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin maxim meaning \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. A person who knowingly and freely accepts a risk cannot claim compensation for harm within that risk (Delhi High Court, Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India, 2017). The Supreme Court calls it the defence of \u201cConsent of the plaintiff\u201d (Kaushnuma Begum, 2001).<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-2\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What are the essentials of volenti non fit injuria?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">From the Delhi High Court\u2019s explanation in Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India (2 May 2017, paras 30, 36 and 38): the injured person must have known of the risk, must have agreed to run it, expressly or impliedly, and the harm must come from the very risk accepted. The principle \u201ccomes down to a correct assessment of what risk the plaintiff assents to\u201d.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-3\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Is knowing about a risk the same as consenting to it (scienti non fit injuria)?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">No. The Delhi High Court in Kaila (2017) adopted the ruling in White v. Blackmore that \u201ca spectator\u2019s knowledge that a particular sporting event involves an element of risk does not mean that he is aware of, and thereby consented to, negligence by the organisers in respect of the safety arrangements.\u201d<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-4\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Does signing a consent form or waiver bar a negligence claim?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Not automatically. The question under the volenti defence is what risk the person actually accepted, and the Delhi High Court in Kaila (2017) held that accepting the inherent risks of an activity is not accepting the other side\u2019s negligence. Whether a particular waiver excludes a negligence claim depends on its words and the governing law; no official source opened for this post lays down a general rule.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-5\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Can consent be a defence to causing death?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Not to intentional killing. Section 25 BNS (formerly Section 87 IPC) covers only acts not intended, or known to be likely, to cause death or grievous hurt. Section 26 BNS (formerly 88 IPC) protects good-faith acts for a person\u2019s benefit with consent, such as risky surgery, only if death is not intended. Under Exception 5 to Section 101 BNS (formerly 300 IPC), an adult\u2019s consent to death reduces murder to culpable homicide \u2013 still an offence.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-6\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Is a rescuer injured while saving someone barred by volenti?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">In Urmila Devi v. MCD (Delhi High Court, 3 November 2016), a man drowned in an unbarricaded drain while rescuing two children. Counsel argued that a rescuer \u201ccannot be met with the defence of volenti non fit injuria\u201d. The Court held the responsible Delhi Government department liable for its negligence and awarded his widow \u20b95,64,120, without separately ruling on the volenti point.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-7\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Which section of the BNS or IPC deals with volenti non fit injuria?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Neither code names the maxim. Consent as a defence to a crime is in the general exceptions, Sections 25 to 30 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Sections 87 to 92 IPC), in force from 1 July 2024. Section 25 is the closest equivalent; Section 28 says consent is invalid if given under fear or misconception of fact that the doer knows of, by a person intoxicated or of unsound mind who cannot understand it, or (unless the context shows otherwise) by a child under twelve.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-8\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What is the difference between volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Volenti asks whether the injured person agreed to the risk; where it applies there is no valid claim for that harm (Kaila, 2017). Contributory negligence asks whether he failed \u201cto use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property\u201d (Pramodkumar Jhaveri, Supreme Court, 2002); in that case the High Court had made a 30% \u201cproportionate deduction\u201d, which the Supreme Court set aside on the facts.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-9\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Does volenti non fit injuria apply in motor accident (MACT) claims?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">In Kaushnuma Begum (2001) the Supreme Court applied strict liability to motor accident claims, subject to exceptions including consent. But for the fixed compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2013 \u20b95 lakh for death, \u20b92.5 lakh for grievous hurt \u2013 the claimant need not prove \u201cany wrongful act or neglect or default\u201d of anyone (Section 164(2)).<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-10\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Can an employer use volenti against an injured worker?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Section 74 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (in force from 21 November 2025, replacing the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923) makes the employer liable for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, subject to the exceptions in its proviso (drink or drugs, wilful disobedience of safety orders, wilful removal of safety guards \u2013 not applicable to death or permanent total disablement). It does not mention consent. In Kaila (2017) the Delhi High Court held that a pilot does not consent to an avoidable maintenance defect.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-11\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">Is a patient\u2019s consent a defence for a doctor?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">In criminal law, Section 26 BNS (formerly Section 88 IPC) protects an act done in good faith for a person\u2019s benefit with his consent, even if death is a known risk, provided death is not intended. Section 30 BNS (formerly 92 IPC) covers good-faith treatment without consent when consent cannot be obtained in time.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-12\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What is volenti non fit injuria in Hindi?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">It can be explained as \u201c\u091c\u094b \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0947\u091a\u094d\u091b\u093e \u0938\u0947 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0940\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948, \u0909\u0938\u0915\u0947 \u0938\u093e\u0925 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0935\u093f\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u094d\u0937\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u0940\u201d \u2013 the firm\u2019s own rendering, as no official Hindi translation of the maxim was found. The official Hindi text of the BNS uses \u201c\u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f\u201d for consent and, in Section 25, \u201c\u0905\u092d\u093f\u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u092f\u093e \u0935\u093f\u0935\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093f\u0924 \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f\u201d for express or implied consent.<\/p> <\/div> <div class=\"schema-faq-section\" id=\"faq-question-13\"><strong class=\"schema-faq-question\">What are the important case laws on volenti non fit injuria in India?<\/strong> <p class=\"schema-faq-answer\">Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance (Supreme Court, 2001) adopted Winfield\u2019s list of defences to strict liability, starting with consent of the plaintiff, in motor accident claims. Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2017) defines the maxim and limits it to the risk actually accepted.<\/p> <\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Volenti non fit injuria<\/em> \u2013 \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d \u2013 means that a person who knowingly and freely accepts a risk cannot claim compensation for harm within that risk. Indian courts apply it narrowly: it is the defence of \u201cConsent of the plaintiff\u201d (<em>Kaushnuma Begum<\/em>), and it turns on \u201cwhat risk the plaintiff assents to\u201d, so knowledge of a risk is not consent to someone else\u2019s negligence (<em>Kaila<\/em>). Statutes such as Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 74 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 pay compensation without proof of fault. Contributory negligence is a different doctrine: in <em>Pramodkumar<\/em> the High Court had reduced the award in proportion rather than rejecting the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In criminal law, consent works only within Sections 25 to 30 BNS (formerly 87 to 92 IPC): never for intended death, only from adults under Section 25, and not when given under fear or misconception known to the doer, by a person who cannot understand it because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind, or by a child under twelve (Section 28). For a related maxim on liability for others\u2019 acts, see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-32\/\">respondeat superior<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sources used for this post: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 25 to 30, 101 (Exception 5) and 358 and the commencement footnote (S.O. 850(E)) (India Code, as on 6 October 2025; no later amendment shown on 23 October 2026), with the official Hindi text of Sections 25 to 30 and Exception 5 to Section 101 (India Code Hh202345.pdf, Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II Section 1A) and the firm\u2019s Gazette-checked IPC to BNS mapping; the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 140 (omitted) and 164 (India Code, as on 15 August 2026); the Code on Social Security, 2020, Sections 74 and 164(1) (India Code, as on 21 November 2025; Sections 74 and 164 in force from 21 November 2025 by S.O. 5319(E)), and India Code\u2019s records of the repeal of the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923 (by Act 36 of 2020) and the Employers\u2019 Liability Act, 1938 (by Act 23 of 2016); and the official copies of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001, Supreme Court, 3 January 2001 (<a href=\"https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/17525.pdf\">api.sci.gov.in<\/a>); Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, Civil Appeal No. 5436 of 1994, Supreme Court, 5 August 2002 (<a href=\"https:\/\/api.sci.gov.in\/jonew\/judis\/18543.pdf\">api.sci.gov.in<\/a>); Urmila Devi v. MCD, W.P.(C) 1170\/2007 and connected petitions, Delhi High Court, 3 November 2016 (<a href=\"https:\/\/delhihighcourt.nic.in\/app\/showFileJudgment\/IKK03112016CW11702007.pdf\">delhihighcourt.nic.in<\/a>); and Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 3414\/2013, Delhi High Court, 2 May 2017 (<a href=\"https:\/\/delhihighcourt.nic.in\/app\/showFileJudgment\/SRB02052017CW34142013.pdf\">delhihighcourt.nic.in<\/a>). English cases and Winfield on Tort are cited only as quoted in these judgments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"clf-related\" style=\"margin:28px 0 8px;padding:16px 20px;border:1px solid #e3e3e3;border-radius:6px;background:#fafafa\">\n<p style=\"margin:0 0 8px;font-weight:700\">Related reading and free tools<\/p>\n<ul style=\"margin:0;padding-left:20px\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxims-explained\/\">Legal Maxims Explained: Meanings, Origins and Use in Indian Courts<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/motor-accident-claims-tribunals-mact\/\">Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/murder-and-culpable-homicide\/\">Murder and Culpable Homicide<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-code-comparison-tool\/\">IPC to BNS, CrPC to BNSS and IEA to BSA: Section Comparison Tool<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-32\/\">Respondeat Superior \u2013 Legal Maxim of the Day<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-3\/\">Res Ipsa Loquitur \u2013 Legal Maxim of the Day<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-17\/\">Actus Reus \u2013 Legal Maxim of the Day<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/gender-neutral-rape-laws-in-india-a-necessary-step-towards-justice-protecting-all-victims-of-sexual-violence\/\">Section 63 BNS and Gender-Neutral Rape Laws in India<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/a-deep-dive-into-torts-the-intricacies-of-civil-wrongs\/\">Law of Torts: Civil Wrongs Explained<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin legal maxim that literally means \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. In plain words: if you knowingly and freely accept a risk, you cannot later sue the person who exposed you to that risk for the harm it causes. The Delhi High Court has described it [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":543,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[386],"tags":[387,388],"class_list":["post-542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-maxims","tag-legal-maxim","tag-legal-terminology"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Volenti Non Fit Injuria Meaning: Examples, Cases, BNS, Hindi<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Volenti non fit injuria means \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. Its meaning, essentials, exceptions, case law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Hindi.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Volenti Non Fit Injuria Meaning: Examples, Cases, BNS, Hindi\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Volenti non fit injuria means \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. Its meaning, essentials, exceptions, case law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Hindi.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Century Law Firm Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Century-Law-Firm-103762818279916\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-07-19T04:35:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-10-25T15:49:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@centurylawind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@centurylawind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/15c0285d46c9a3250f689fe9da251747\"},\"headline\":\"Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Meaning, Essentials, Exceptions, Case Law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Meaning in Hindi\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-19T04:35:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-25T15:49:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4723,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg\",\"keywords\":[\"legal maxim\",\"legal terminology\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Most Used Legal Maxims, Translation and Meanings\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"FAQPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/\",\"name\":\"Volenti Non Fit Injuria Meaning: Examples, Cases, BNS, Hindi\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-19T04:35:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-25T15:49:40+00:00\",\"description\":\"Volenti non fit injuria means \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. Its meaning, essentials, exceptions, case law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Hindi.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"mainEntity\":[{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-1\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-2\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-3\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-4\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-5\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-6\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-7\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-8\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-9\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-10\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-11\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-12\"},{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-13\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/07\\\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg\",\"width\":1080,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"century law firm legal maxim volenti non fit injuria\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Meaning, Essentials, Exceptions, Case Law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Meaning in Hindi\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Century Law Firm Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Century Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/05\\\/Century-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/05\\\/Century-1.png\",\"width\":1801,\"height\":538,\"caption\":\"Century Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/Century-Law-Firm-103762818279916\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/centurylawind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/centurylawind\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/channel\\\/UCC1y40wQB720qJ-eGQLJR3w\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/15c0285d46c9a3250f689fe9da251747\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\"]},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-1\",\"position\":1,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-1\",\"name\":\"What is the meaning of volenti non fit injuria?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin maxim meaning \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. A person who knowingly and freely accepts a risk cannot claim compensation for harm within that risk (Delhi High Court, Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India, 2017). The Supreme Court calls it the defence of \u201cConsent of the plaintiff\u201d (Kaushnuma Begum, 2001).\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-2\",\"position\":2,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-2\",\"name\":\"What are the essentials of volenti non fit injuria?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"From the Delhi High Court\u2019s explanation in Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India (2 May 2017, paras 30, 36 and 38): the injured person must have known of the risk, must have agreed to run it, expressly or impliedly, and the harm must come from the very risk accepted. The principle \u201ccomes down to a correct assessment of what risk the plaintiff assents to\u201d.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-3\",\"position\":3,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-3\",\"name\":\"Is knowing about a risk the same as consenting to it (scienti non fit injuria)?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"No. The Delhi High Court in Kaila (2017) adopted the ruling in White v. Blackmore that \u201ca spectator\u2019s knowledge that a particular sporting event involves an element of risk does not mean that he is aware of, and thereby consented to, negligence by the organisers in respect of the safety arrangements.\u201d\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-4\",\"position\":4,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-4\",\"name\":\"Does signing a consent form or waiver bar a negligence claim?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Not automatically. The question under the volenti defence is what risk the person actually accepted, and the Delhi High Court in Kaila (2017) held that accepting the inherent risks of an activity is not accepting the other side\u2019s negligence. Whether a particular waiver excludes a negligence claim depends on its words and the governing law; no official source opened for this post lays down a general rule.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-5\",\"position\":5,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-5\",\"name\":\"Can consent be a defence to causing death?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Not to intentional killing. Section 25 BNS (formerly Section 87 IPC) covers only acts not intended, or known to be likely, to cause death or grievous hurt. Section 26 BNS (formerly 88 IPC) protects good-faith acts for a person\u2019s benefit with consent, such as risky surgery, only if death is not intended. Under Exception 5 to Section 101 BNS (formerly 300 IPC), an adult\u2019s consent to death reduces murder to culpable homicide \u2013 still an offence.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-6\",\"position\":6,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-6\",\"name\":\"Is a rescuer injured while saving someone barred by volenti?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"In Urmila Devi v. MCD (Delhi High Court, 3 November 2016), a man drowned in an unbarricaded drain while rescuing two children. Counsel argued that a rescuer \u201ccannot be met with the defence of volenti non fit injuria\u201d. The Court held the responsible Delhi Government department liable for its negligence and awarded his widow \u20b95,64,120, without separately ruling on the volenti point.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-7\",\"position\":7,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-7\",\"name\":\"Which section of the BNS or IPC deals with volenti non fit injuria?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Neither code names the maxim. Consent as a defence to a crime is in the general exceptions, Sections 25 to 30 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Sections 87 to 92 IPC), in force from 1 July 2024. Section 25 is the closest equivalent; Section 28 says consent is invalid if given under fear or misconception of fact that the doer knows of, by a person intoxicated or of unsound mind who cannot understand it, or (unless the context shows otherwise) by a child under twelve.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-8\",\"position\":8,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-8\",\"name\":\"What is the difference between volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Volenti asks whether the injured person agreed to the risk; where it applies there is no valid claim for that harm (Kaila, 2017). Contributory negligence asks whether he failed \u201cto use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property\u201d (Pramodkumar Jhaveri, Supreme Court, 2002); in that case the High Court had made a 30% \u201cproportionate deduction\u201d, which the Supreme Court set aside on the facts.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-9\",\"position\":9,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-9\",\"name\":\"Does volenti non fit injuria apply in motor accident (MACT) claims?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"In Kaushnuma Begum (2001) the Supreme Court applied strict liability to motor accident claims, subject to exceptions including consent. But for the fixed compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2013 \u20b95 lakh for death, \u20b92.5 lakh for grievous hurt \u2013 the claimant need not prove \u201cany wrongful act or neglect or default\u201d of anyone (Section 164(2)).\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-10\",\"position\":10,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-10\",\"name\":\"Can an employer use volenti against an injured worker?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Section 74 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (in force from 21 November 2025, replacing the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923) makes the employer liable for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, subject to the exceptions in its proviso (drink or drugs, wilful disobedience of safety orders, wilful removal of safety guards \u2013 not applicable to death or permanent total disablement). It does not mention consent. In Kaila (2017) the Delhi High Court held that a pilot does not consent to an avoidable maintenance defect.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-11\",\"position\":11,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-11\",\"name\":\"Is a patient\u2019s consent a defence for a doctor?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"In criminal law, Section 26 BNS (formerly Section 88 IPC) protects an act done in good faith for a person\u2019s benefit with his consent, even if death is a known risk, provided death is not intended. Section 30 BNS (formerly 92 IPC) covers good-faith treatment without consent when consent cannot be obtained in time.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-12\",\"position\":12,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-12\",\"name\":\"What is volenti non fit injuria in Hindi?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"It can be explained as \u201c\u091c\u094b \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0947\u091a\u094d\u091b\u093e \u0938\u0947 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0940\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948, \u0909\u0938\u0915\u0947 \u0938\u093e\u0925 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0935\u093f\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u094d\u0937\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u0940\u201d \u2013 the firm\u2019s own rendering, as no official Hindi translation of the maxim was found. The official Hindi text of the BNS uses \u201c\u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f\u201d for consent and, in Section 25, \u201c\u0905\u092d\u093f\u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u092f\u093e \u0935\u093f\u0935\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093f\u0924 \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f\u201d for express or implied consent.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-13\",\"position\":13,\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.centurylawfirm.in\\\/blog\\\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\\\/#faq-question-13\",\"name\":\"What are the important case laws on volenti non fit injuria in India?\",\"answerCount\":1,\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance (Supreme Court, 2001) adopted Winfield\u2019s list of defences to strict liability, starting with consent of the plaintiff, in motor accident claims. Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2017) defines the maxim and limits it to the risk actually accepted.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Volenti Non Fit Injuria Meaning: Examples, Cases, BNS, Hindi","description":"Volenti non fit injuria means \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. Its meaning, essentials, exceptions, case law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Hindi.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Volenti Non Fit Injuria Meaning: Examples, Cases, BNS, Hindi","og_description":"Volenti non fit injuria means \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. Its meaning, essentials, exceptions, case law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Hindi.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/","og_site_name":"Century Law Firm Blog","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Century-Law-Firm-103762818279916","article_published_time":"2021-07-19T04:35:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-10-25T15:49:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1080,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@centurylawind","twitter_site":"@centurylawind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/15c0285d46c9a3250f689fe9da251747"},"headline":"Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Meaning, Essentials, Exceptions, Case Law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Meaning in Hindi","datePublished":"2021-07-19T04:35:28+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-25T15:49:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/"},"wordCount":4723,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg","keywords":["legal maxim","legal terminology"],"articleSection":["Most Used Legal Maxims, Translation and Meanings"],"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":["WebPage","FAQPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/","name":"Volenti Non Fit Injuria Meaning: Examples, Cases, BNS, Hindi","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg","datePublished":"2021-07-19T04:35:28+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-25T15:49:40+00:00","description":"Volenti non fit injuria means \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. Its meaning, essentials, exceptions, case law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Hindi.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#breadcrumb"},"mainEntity":[{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-1"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-2"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-3"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-4"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-5"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-6"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-7"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-8"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-9"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-10"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-11"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-12"},{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-13"}],"inLanguage":"en","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg","width":1080,"height":1080,"caption":"century law firm legal maxim volenti non fit injuria"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Meaning, Essentials, Exceptions, Case Law, BNS Sections 25\u201330 and Meaning in Hindi"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/","name":"Century Law Firm Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#organization","name":"Century Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Century-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/Century-1.png","width":1801,"height":538,"caption":"Century Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Century-Law-Firm-103762818279916","https:\/\/x.com\/centurylawind","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/centurylawind\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCC1y40wQB720qJ-eGQLJR3w"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/15c0285d46c9a3250f689fe9da251747","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9067e9a8d23d7f8eaaa89c9f746f4e14d55fa71a602bcc4b141c8acf46a3291?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog"]},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-1","position":1,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-1","name":"What is the meaning of volenti non fit injuria?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin maxim meaning \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. A person who knowingly and freely accepts a risk cannot claim compensation for harm within that risk (Delhi High Court, Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India, 2017). The Supreme Court calls it the defence of \u201cConsent of the plaintiff\u201d (Kaushnuma Begum, 2001).","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-2","position":2,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-2","name":"What are the essentials of volenti non fit injuria?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"From the Delhi High Court\u2019s explanation in Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India (2 May 2017, paras 30, 36 and 38): the injured person must have known of the risk, must have agreed to run it, expressly or impliedly, and the harm must come from the very risk accepted. The principle \u201ccomes down to a correct assessment of what risk the plaintiff assents to\u201d.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-3","position":3,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-3","name":"Is knowing about a risk the same as consenting to it (scienti non fit injuria)?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. The Delhi High Court in Kaila (2017) adopted the ruling in White v. Blackmore that \u201ca spectator\u2019s knowledge that a particular sporting event involves an element of risk does not mean that he is aware of, and thereby consented to, negligence by the organisers in respect of the safety arrangements.\u201d","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-4","position":4,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-4","name":"Does signing a consent form or waiver bar a negligence claim?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Not automatically. The question under the volenti defence is what risk the person actually accepted, and the Delhi High Court in Kaila (2017) held that accepting the inherent risks of an activity is not accepting the other side\u2019s negligence. Whether a particular waiver excludes a negligence claim depends on its words and the governing law; no official source opened for this post lays down a general rule.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-5","position":5,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-5","name":"Can consent be a defence to causing death?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Not to intentional killing. Section 25 BNS (formerly Section 87 IPC) covers only acts not intended, or known to be likely, to cause death or grievous hurt. Section 26 BNS (formerly 88 IPC) protects good-faith acts for a person\u2019s benefit with consent, such as risky surgery, only if death is not intended. Under Exception 5 to Section 101 BNS (formerly 300 IPC), an adult\u2019s consent to death reduces murder to culpable homicide \u2013 still an offence.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-6","position":6,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-6","name":"Is a rescuer injured while saving someone barred by volenti?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"In Urmila Devi v. MCD (Delhi High Court, 3 November 2016), a man drowned in an unbarricaded drain while rescuing two children. Counsel argued that a rescuer \u201ccannot be met with the defence of volenti non fit injuria\u201d. The Court held the responsible Delhi Government department liable for its negligence and awarded his widow \u20b95,64,120, without separately ruling on the volenti point.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-7","position":7,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-7","name":"Which section of the BNS or IPC deals with volenti non fit injuria?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Neither code names the maxim. Consent as a defence to a crime is in the general exceptions, Sections 25 to 30 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Sections 87 to 92 IPC), in force from 1 July 2024. Section 25 is the closest equivalent; Section 28 says consent is invalid if given under fear or misconception of fact that the doer knows of, by a person intoxicated or of unsound mind who cannot understand it, or (unless the context shows otherwise) by a child under twelve.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-8","position":8,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-8","name":"What is the difference between volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Volenti asks whether the injured person agreed to the risk; where it applies there is no valid claim for that harm (Kaila, 2017). Contributory negligence asks whether he failed \u201cto use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property\u201d (Pramodkumar Jhaveri, Supreme Court, 2002); in that case the High Court had made a 30% \u201cproportionate deduction\u201d, which the Supreme Court set aside on the facts.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-9","position":9,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-9","name":"Does volenti non fit injuria apply in motor accident (MACT) claims?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"In Kaushnuma Begum (2001) the Supreme Court applied strict liability to motor accident claims, subject to exceptions including consent. But for the fixed compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2013 \u20b95 lakh for death, \u20b92.5 lakh for grievous hurt \u2013 the claimant need not prove \u201cany wrongful act or neglect or default\u201d of anyone (Section 164(2)).","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-10","position":10,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-10","name":"Can an employer use volenti against an injured worker?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Section 74 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (in force from 21 November 2025, replacing the Employee\u2019s Compensation Act, 1923) makes the employer liable for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, subject to the exceptions in its proviso (drink or drugs, wilful disobedience of safety orders, wilful removal of safety guards \u2013 not applicable to death or permanent total disablement). It does not mention consent. In Kaila (2017) the Delhi High Court held that a pilot does not consent to an avoidable maintenance defect.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-11","position":11,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-11","name":"Is a patient\u2019s consent a defence for a doctor?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"In criminal law, Section 26 BNS (formerly Section 88 IPC) protects an act done in good faith for a person\u2019s benefit with his consent, even if death is a known risk, provided death is not intended. Section 30 BNS (formerly 92 IPC) covers good-faith treatment without consent when consent cannot be obtained in time.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-12","position":12,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-12","name":"What is volenti non fit injuria in Hindi?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It can be explained as \u201c\u091c\u094b \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0947\u091a\u094d\u091b\u093e \u0938\u0947 \u091c\u094b\u0916\u093f\u092e \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0940\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948, \u0909\u0938\u0915\u0947 \u0938\u093e\u0925 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0935\u093f\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u094d\u0937\u0924\u093f \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u0940\u201d \u2013 the firm\u2019s own rendering, as no official Hindi translation of the maxim was found. The official Hindi text of the BNS uses \u201c\u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f\u201d for consent and, in Section 25, \u201c\u0905\u092d\u093f\u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924 \u092f\u093e \u0935\u093f\u0935\u0915\u094d\u0937\u093f\u0924 \u0938\u092e\u094d\u092e\u0924\u093f\u201d for express or implied consent.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Question","@id":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-13","position":13,"url":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/legal-maxim-of-the-day-34\/#faq-question-13","name":"What are the important case laws on volenti non fit injuria in India?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance (Supreme Court, 2001) adopted Winfield\u2019s list of defences to strict liability, starting with consent of the plaintiff, in motor accident claims. Sanjeet Singh Kaila v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2017) defines the maxim and limits it to the risk actually accepted.","inLanguage":"en"},"inLanguage":"en"}]}},"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg",1080,1080,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM-150x150.jpeg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM-300x300.jpeg",300,300,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM-768x768.jpeg",768,768,true],"large":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM-1024x1024.jpeg",1024,1024,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg",1080,1080,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-19-at-10.00.47-AM.jpeg",1080,1080,false]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"admin","author_link":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin legal maxim that literally means \u201cto a willing person, no injury is done\u201d. In plain words: if you knowingly and freely accept a risk, you cannot later sue the person who exposed you to that risk for the harm it causes. The Delhi High Court has described it&hellip;","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=542"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/542\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5856,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/542\/revisions\/5856"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/543"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}