JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Additional District Judge of Gwalior whereby the plaintiff-respondent Gowardhandas was awarded Rs. 1,000 as damages for assault and battery committed by the defendant-appellant. 2. It was alleged by the plaintiff that on the evening of 6-12-1946 Mst. Chamelibai accompanied by a family barber came to the plaintiff's house for the purpose of distributing "ladoos" (Sweets) in connection with the 'Jalwa' ceremony of a recently born grandson. For some reason Gowardhandas declined to accept the "ladoos". Thereupon Chamelibai returned to her house abusing the plaintiff, and shortly afterwards she again came to the plaintiff's house bringing with her, her sons Roopkishore and Sawroopkishore; that on naming to the plaintiff's house Chamelibai and her sons abused the plaintiff and Swaroopkishore slapped him in the face. The plaintiff further alleged that Swaroopkishore also threatened him to beat with a shoe and that Mst. Chamelibai also picked up a stone to hit him. The plaintiff stated that by reason of this conduct of the defendants he sustained shock, mental suffering and injury to his dignity and position. He claimed Rs. 15,000 as damages. The defendant Roopkishore denied the plaintiff's allegations saying that he was not present at the scene of the occurrence. The defence of Mst. Chamelibai and Swaroopkishore was that when Chamelibai went to give "Ladoos" to the plaintiff the plaintiff declined to accept diem and began abusing Chamelibai; that on learning this Swaroopkishore went to the house of the plaintiff and brought her mother back; that the plaintiff's allegations about the assault and battery and abuses on their part were baseless and false. The trial Judge found that Swaroopkishore slapped the plaintiff without any reason and that all the defendants abused the plaintiff. He further found that the plaintiff had not been able to prove the precise abuses that were uttered by the defendants or the fact that Chamelibai picked up a stone to hit him or that Chamelibai and Roopkishore instigated Swaroopkishore in slapping the plaintiff. On this finding and taking into consideration the evidence as to the plaintiff's and the defendants' status and position and the circumstances in which the plaintiff was slapped, the trial Judge came to the conclusion that besides general damages the plaintiff should be given exemplary damages also and awarded to the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 1,000 as damages against Swaroopkishore only. 1,000 as damages against Swaroopkishore only. The Court also, directed Swaroopkishore to pay the plaintiff's full costs of the suit and to bear his own costs. Swaroopkishore has now appealed to this Court. 3. In his written statement the appellant has not denied the fact of his mother Chamelibai having gone to the plaintiff's house on the evening of 6-12-1946 for giving "ladoos" to him and of the plaintiff's refusing them. The appellant also admitted, his presence on material date and time at plaintiff's house. The controversy is as to what took place when Chamelibai and the appellant visited the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff alleged that Chamelibai and Swaroopkishore abused him and that Swaroopkishore gave him a slap. The appellant stated that the plaintiff himself abused him and that he had gone to the plaintiffs' house to bring back his mother. Mr. Kak, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that the evidence produced by the plaintiff was interested, unworthy of any credit and altogether inconclusive to establish the fact that the appellant and Chamelibai abused the plaintiff or that Swaroopkishore slapped the plaintiff. It was said that the plaintiff improved his story from time to time that the version put forward by him was altogether improbable and that the statements of his witnesses Sukhdeo and Jwala Prasad which were not considered by the trial Judge showed that the plaintiff's story was false. There is no force in the criticism made by the learned counsel of the plaintiff's evidence. (After discussion of the evidence his Lordship proceeded :) On a consideration of the evidence on record, I think the learned Additional District Judge was right in holding that Swaroopkishore slapped Gowardhandas. 4. It was then contended that Swaroopkishore was of fifteen or sixteen years of age when he slapped Gowardhandas and that therefore, being a minor he could not be held liable in damages. The contention must be rejected. A minor is in general liable for his torts in the same manner and to the same extent as an adult. The rule of exemption from all responsibility and liability for an act done by a person below a certain age has no applicability in conduct tortious in itself and in its very essence. The contention must be rejected. A minor is in general liable for his torts in the same manner and to the same extent as an adult. The rule of exemption from all responsibility and liability for an act done by a person below a certain age has no applicability in conduct tortious in itself and in its very essence. It is only in those cases where an act is innocent in itself, but becomes tortious by the addition of some ingredient such as intention, malice, knowledge or state of mind in the person charged as a wrong-doer that the age and mental capacity of the defendant becomes relevant. (See Pollock on Torts, 15th Edition P. 47; Salmond on Torts, 11th Edition P. 70). Here, the act of slapping Gowardhandas was not the indirect result of a legitimate activity gone wrong, but was the direct result of the appellant's illegal behaviour which was wrongful from the beginning and could not conceivably be anything else. In the case of a violent assault and battery on a harmless man, such considerations as intention, knowledge, state of mind and conception of right and wrong are wholly immaterial, the act in itself is sufficient to support the cause of action. The appellant cannot, therefore, contend that he cannot be made liable for damages because at the time of the commission of the battery he was a minor of fifteen or sixteen years of age, and did not know the nature and quality of the act or that what he was doing was wrong. 5. Counsel for the appellant then submitted that Rs. 1,000 as damages was a very large sum of money for a case of this kind. I do not agree. The evidence is that the plaintiff Gowardhandas is a person of some esteem and position in his community. He and the defendants are in fairly affluent circumstances. He was slapped in his shop in the presence of many persons. He does not appear to have suffered much physical injury. But it must have been very upsetting for a man of position to be attacked like that at his own house by an youngster. The attack was undoubtedly an insult to his dignity and status. He was slapped in his shop in the presence of many persons. He does not appear to have suffered much physical injury. But it must have been very upsetting for a man of position to be attacked like that at his own house by an youngster. The attack was undoubtedly an insult to his dignity and status. It has been stated in Clerk and Lindsell's "Law of Torts" at p. 317 that : "Any trespass to the person, however slight, gives a right of action to recover at any rate nominal damages. Even where there has been no physical injury substantial damages may be awarded for the injury to a man's dignity or for discomfort or inconvenience. Where the defendant has acted contumeliously, exemplary damages may be awarded. The time, place and manner of the trespass and the conduct of the defendant, may be taken into account. If the plaintiff has, by reason of a trespass committed upon his person, sustained mental suffering as well as damages may include compensation for that mental suffering." 6. On the evidence on record, I do not think that there can be any doubt that the appellant's act in slapping Gowardhandas was an outrage committed against the plaintiff with impunity and in utter disregard of his right. This sort of conduct does not pay. Having regard to the circumstances in which the appellant slapped Gowardhandas, the learned trial Judge, in my opinion properly awarded exemplary damages. The amount of Rs. 1,000 as damages cannot be said to be so excessive that no Court could reasonably have given them. 7. As to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower Court was not justified in depriving the appellant of the costs on the plaintiff's claim to the extent that it was dismissed and in giving to the plaintiff full costs, it cannot be entertained for the simple reason that the appellant has not paid any Court-fees on the costs he claims. Even, otherwise, there does not seem to me any reason for interfering with the trial Judge's discretion in the matter. 8. For the above reasons this appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.