Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm, and may recover damages (compensation).

FACTS: 'A' was a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take A's vote. In spite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom 'A' wanted to vote, won the election. But, 'A' brought an action for damages:

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

The correct answer is: "Since legal right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, compensation should be granted."

Let us carefully break down the principle and apply it to the given facts step by step.

Step 1: Understand the Principle
The principle states two key things:
1. Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom that right is vested is entitled to bring an action.
2. This entitlement exists even if the person has suffered no actual loss or harm — and they may still recover damages (compensation).

This principle is rooted in the legal maxim "injuria sine damno" — meaning a legal injury (violation of a right) without actual damage is still actionable in law. The violation of the right itself is sufficient cause for legal remedy.

Step 2: Identify the Legal Right Involved
'A' is described as a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. As a qualified voter, 'A' holds a legal right to vote. This is a legally recognized right vested in every eligible citizen to cast their vote in an election.

Step 3: Examine What Happened
The returning officer wrongfully refused to take 'A's vote. This act directly interfered with 'A's legal right to vote. Therefore, there was a clear invasion of A's legal right.

Step 4: Apply the Principle to the Facts
Now we apply the principle directly:
- Was there an invasion of a legal right? → Yes. A's right to vote was wrongfully denied.
- Does the principle require actual loss or harm for compensation? → No. The principle explicitly says compensation is available even if no actual loss is suffered.
- Did the fact that A's preferred candidate won the election negate the violation? → No. The outcome of the election does not undo the wrongful denial of A's right to vote. The right was violated at the moment of refusal, regardless of the result.

Step 5: Eliminate the Incorrect Options
- "Since no legal right of 'A' had been violated..." → Incorrect. A's right to vote IS a legal right, and it WAS violated.
- "No compensation could be granted, as 'A' had suffered no loss as his candidate won..." → Incorrect. The principle makes it clear that actual loss is NOT required. The violation itself is enough.
- "Since no fundamental right of 'A' had been violated..." → Incorrect and irrelevant. The principle speaks of legal rights, not specifically fundamental rights. The question does not ask us to apply constitutional law — only the given principle.

Conclusion:
Since the returning officer wrongfully denied 'A' their legal right to vote, there was a clear invasion of a legal right. As per the given principle, 'A' is fully entitled to bring an action and recover damages, regardless of the fact that their preferred candidate ultimately won. Therefore, compensation should be granted.