Delhi District Court
Kanwaljit Singh Nanda vs Bases Rajdhani Power Ltd on 20 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE -02, WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Civ DJ No. 258/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-002736-2019
DLWT010027362019
Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Nanda
S/o late Sh. G.S. Nanda
R/o K-8, Fateh Nagar, Near Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
...Plaintiff
Versus
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
A company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
Delhi-110019 and Corporate, Legal and Enforcement Cell at
Andrews Ganj, next to Andrews Ganj Market, New Delhi-110049.
Also At:
BSES Corporate and Legal Enforcement Cell,
66 KV Grid Station, OPP. DDU Hospital,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064
through its Authorised officer/person.
. . . Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 08.04.2019
Date on which reserved for judgment : 21.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 20.08.2025.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 1/40
Suit for recovery of Rs. 15,10,000/- as damages and
compensation for defamation.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 15,10,000/- as damages and compensation for defamation.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS PER HIS PLAINT
2. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India. It is further averred that defendant company had filed a complaint against the spouse/wife of the plaintiff u/s 135 read with section 138 of electricity Act, 2003, on the basis of false and fabricated documents on 10.04.2013.
3. It is further averred in the plaint that the wife of the plaintiff expired on 03.11.2017 and the complaint of the complainant had been abated due to death of the wife of the plaintiff.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had filed the complaint against the wife of plaintiff in the court by alleging that the defendant company had inspected the electricity connection of the house of the wife of the plaintiff on 05.12.2012 and the authorized Enforcement team of defendant company found that two numbers copper shunt have been connected between phase to phase and neutral to neutral terminal of the meter bearing no. 23165155 installed at site. But inspection could not be Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 2/40 completed as the premises was found lock and thereafter notice u/s 163 was sent and the premises was again inspected on 06.12.2012 by a joint inspection team of the defendant company.
5. It is further averred that in the complaint filed by the defendant, it is mentioned that the inspection was again carried out and the load of 8.210 KW for domestic use was found connected against the sanctioned load of 5.00 KW under Domestic Category. It is further averred in the plaint that it is mentioned in the above said complaint that during the inspection, illegal holes were found at the backside of the meter terminal and the meter was removed and seized at site vide seizure memo dated 06.12.2012 and sealed in a bag and supply to the premises was restored through new meter.
6. It is further averred that as per the complaint of the defendant the Meter no. 23165155 was sent to NABL accredited meter testing laboratory for further testing/analyses of the meter and necessary videography/photography was done by the team members with the help of digital Camera at site. It is further averred that in the complaint, it is mentioned that the laboratory declared that the meter is tampered.
7. It is further averred in the plaint that the true facts are that on 03.12.2012, some persons came to the house of the plaintiff and claimed themselves as employee of defendant's company. It is further averred that they asked for the electricity Bill and the family members of the plaintiff had handed over the same to them. It is further averred that they told that the meter has been burnt.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 3/40
8. It is further averred by the plaintiff that his family members narrated the above said fact burning of meter to the plaintiff and the plaintiff came to his house, where one person met him and told his name as Sunil, employee of BSES. It is further averred that Mr. Sunil told him that the meter has been burnt and he demanded Rs. 35,000/- from the plaintiff. He told that otherwise the plaintiff will have to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-.
9. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff asked Mr. Sunil as to why he had opened the meter in the absence of his family members, but he did not reply. It is further averred in the plaint that after a while, other BSES employee came there and stated to the plaintiff that when the plaintiff was up stairs, Mr. Shama came there and he took the photo of the meter from his mobile and he stated that plaintiff would have to pay at least Rs. 50,000/- as the share of the amount is also divided to him.
10. It is further averred in the plaint that Mr. Sunil and other BSES Employee installed the same meter again without seal it. It is further averred that in the evening one person came from the defendant's office and stated to the plaintiff that "you lives in Fateh Nagar, are you aware about Kapil Ji", and the plaintiff replied no. He told that Kapil Ji is supervisor and his phone number is 9953459891.
11. It is further averred in the plaint that on the next day i.e. on 4.12.2012, the plaintiff went to Electricity Office and made the payment of electricity Bill and thereafter, the plaintiff made a complaint in Mayapuri, Electricity office regarding burning of Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 4/40 meter vide complaint no. 359. It is further averred that on 6.12.2012, the plaintiff went to DGM, Hari Nagar, where the official of Hari Nagar told to the plaintiff to meet with Sh. T.R. Bhatia at BSES office opposite to DDU, hospital and plaintiff narrated all the story to the official in that office and thereafter his meter was changed by BSES.
12. It is further averred that plaintiff made a complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer BSES Sub. Station Building, Ist Block, CR Park, Opposite Kalibari Mandir, New Delhi and also sent the copy to General Manager BSES and Manger Head of the Enforcement Department but no action was initiated against the aforesaid persons.
13. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff made a complaint in Hari Nagar, Police Station, Delhi against the said illegal acts vide DD No. 26B, dated 16.01.2014 and also made a complaint to ACP, Tilak Nagar and DCP, Rajouri Garden, Delhi but no action has been taken against the said persons. It is further averred that plaintiff had also filed a complaint before consumer Forum. It is further averred that after filing the complaint before consumer forum, the defendant had filed the complaint against the wife of the plaintiff U/s 135 R/w 138 of Electricity Act.
14. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had filed a vague complaint against the plaintiff on the basis of false and vague documents. It is further averred in the plaint that the notice U/s 163 of Electricity Act has been sent to the premises at A-8, Fateh Nagar not at K-8, Fateh Nagar. It is further averred in Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 5/40 the plaint that the defendant's company had prepared a false notice on 10.09.2012 and thereafter they had made a cutting on the notice and write the date as 05.12.2012. It is further averred in the plaint that defendant had added in the notice as "two no. illegal copper shunt connected between phase to phase and neutral terminal of the meter" but in the original notice there is no such remarks.
15. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had placed the photographs of 18.01.2007 but they claimed that the plaintiff has committed a crime of theft of electricity in the year, 2012. It is further averred in the plaint that the officials of the defendant have also created scene and called the plaintiff and his wife as thief in the presence of the respected members of the society. It is further averred that the plaintiff had deposited Rs. 10,000/- to the BSES office and then the official of the defendant's company had reconnected the electricity of the plaintiff.
16. It is further averred in the plaint that the official of the defendant company had tried to tarnish the image of the plaintiff and his wife by calling them as "thief. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had branded the plaintiff and his wife as "thief" though they were never involved in the aforesaid act in any manner whatsoever.
17. It is further averred in the plaint that officials of the defendant had filed a false complaint and created a wrongful remark in the minds of the neighbours and respectable members of the society against the plaintiff and his wife, and due to the acts of the defendant, the plaintiff has lost his earned reputation and Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 6/40 goodwill. It is further averred that the acts and designs of the officials of the defendant are grossly defamatory to the reputation of the plaintiff and his wife and more than their embarrassment.
18. It is further averred that remark of officials of the defendant as thief attributed to the plaintiff and his wife are of such a egregious nature that no respectable person would chanced upon such a remark would consider the plaintiff and his wife a respectable person thereafter. It is further averred that officials of the defendant company have committed the act of defamation of the plaintiff, knowingly that their acts and imputation would harm the reputation of the plaintiff.
19. It is further averred that all the imputation and acts of the defendant comes under the category of defamation and due to that act of the defendant, wrongful loss has been caused to the goodwill, reputation and image of the plaintiff. It is further averred that due to the act of defamation, the plaintiff and his wife have got mental shock, agony and harassment and the wife of the plaintiff went into depression and her health became nastiest and finally she passed away on 03.11.2017.
20. It is further averred in the plaint that defendant company is liable to pay compensation and damages of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the plaintiff for their defamatory acts/imputations and Rs. 10,000/- as the plaintiff had paid Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant company.
CASE OF DEFENDANT AS PER ITS WRITTEN STATEMENT Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 7/40
21. The defendant has filed its written statement by taking preliminary objections that the plaint filed by the plaintiff is frivolous, vexatious, devoid of merits and is an abuse of process of law and the plaint suffer from the virus of suppressio varie, suggestio falsi
22. It is further contended that bare perusal of the suit would reveal that the present suit has been filed by plaintiff as a counter blast to the dishonest Abstraction of Electricity (DAE) Bill dated 01.02.2013 raised against Ms Paramjeet Kaur ( wife of the plaintiff) for a sum of Rs. 32,447/-. It is further contended that under the garb of present false and vexatious suit, the plaintiff is trying to put an undue pressure, so that the defendant indirectly succumbs & would not proceed with the demand as raised vide Supplementary/Assessment Bill dated 01.02.2013 for DAE.
23. It is further contended that plaintiff is praying for damages and compensation of Rs. 15 lacs for defamation and the relief claimed by the plaintiff has not been properly valued in the plaint and plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fees, as per the Court Fees Act and as such the plaint is liable to be rejected as per order VII rule 11 (b) & (c) of CPC.
24. It is further contended that the present suit is without any cause of action against the defendant and it is nothing but an attempt to harass the defendant. It is further contended that plaintiff has filed the suit with malafide intention which contains false averments and incorrect facts. It is further contended that plaintiff has not mentioned in the plaint w.r.t any act or action of Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 8/40 the defendant company which are or were done with an intention to defame the plaintiff.
25. It is further contended that defendant company had no malafide intention to drag the plaintiff in previous litigation, however, the defendant acted on the basis of inspection report, load report and other related documents which were prepared by the officers of the defendant company as per Electricity Act, 2003 and DERC, therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone with exemplary cost with regard thereto as per provisions of section 35 A of CPC, 1908.
26. It is further contended that there was not any act either by spoken, written or any signed visible representation by any officers of the defendant company. Hence, all the allegations alleged by the plaintiff is baseless and just to hamper the reputation of the defendant company, which was just discharging its duty in the dignified manner as well as within the regulations of Delhi Electricity board.
27. It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed the present suit with malafide intention which contains false averments and incorrect facts. It is further contended that the Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi vide gazette notification no. F.11(93)/2003/power/2291 dated 12.09.2007 has appointed technical officers not below the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Manager dealing with distribution, enforcement and commercial functions of the defendant company as well as other companies as authorized officer for the purpose of Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 9/40 Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further contented that in view, thereof, the authorized officer of the defendant company in exercise of the power conferred under section 135(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is authorized to enter, inspect, search, seize and break open any such device or search any place when it has reason to believe that the electricity is being unauthoizedly used and he can further examine and seize any relevant document. Hence, the inspection was carried as per the law, and having no malafide intention to defame the plaintiff and his wife.
28. It is further contended in the written statement that defendant conducted the inspection at the premises of plaintiff as per Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the DERC Regulation. It is further contended that the inspection team found Ms Pramjeet Kaur indulged in DAE by way of illegal shunts in meter bearing No. 23165155, through which four illegal holes were found and hence the case of Meter Tempering (DAE) was booked against Paramjeet Kaur.
29. It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit with malafide intention which contains false averments and incorrect facts. It is further contended that as per the complaint of the plaintiff against Mr. Sunil for demanding bribe, the vigilance department of the defendant company conducted an internal inquiry and found that no person in the name of Sh. Sunil is working in MMG(D) Janakpuri. It is submitted that the person who had allegedly demanded the bribe from the plaintiff may be an imposter and an outsider and as per the record available with the defendant company no such person in the name of Sunil was Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 10/40 working in defendant company as such the allegations against the defendant is false and frivolous as there is no such documentary evidence showing that these acts was done by the team members of the defendant company.
30. It is further contended that plaintiff must prove the loss suffered due to the act or omission of the defendant, in order to allege and receive monetary compensation. It is further contended that there has been no such quantified loss enunciated by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is not entitled to any damage as there is no supporting documents to prove that he has suffered any damage or loss by reason of any acts or omission of the defendant.
31. It is further contended that the present plaint qua defendant is filed on mere conjunctures and surmises. It is submitted that wife of plaintiff has committed the aforesaid offence under section 135 read with section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, hence there is no case made out against the defendant with respect to draging the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.
32. It is submitted that on the basis of inspection documents, the defendant company had filed a criminal complaint titled "
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited vs Paramjeet Kaur" before the Special Electricity Court, ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari vide Criminal complaint No. 331 of 2013 under section 135 read with section 138 of Electricity Act, 2003. It is further submitted that the proceedings in the aforesaid complaint have been abated on account of death of User ( wife of plaintiff).
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 11/40
33. It is further submitted that therefore, there was no intention to hamper the reputation and good will of the plaintiff and his wife by the defendant as being alleged by the plaintiff in the present plaint. It is further averred that despite the fact that the defendant replaced the meter with a new meter as per regulation of DMRC to provide basic amenities, the plaintiff has made this false and frivolous plaint.
34. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant and denied all the objections taken by the defendant.
ISSUES
35. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed vide order dated 08.02.2021.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of Rs. 15,10,000/- as damages? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
36. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, has examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW-1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of his plaint and relied upon documents which are as follows:-
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 12/40
i). Ex.PW1/1 ( OSR): Copy of Aadhar Card
ii). Ex.PW1/2 (colly, 21 pages) : Certified copy of complaint filed by defendant U/s 135 read with Sec. 138 of Electricity Act in criminal complaint no. 331/13 titled BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Paramjeet Kaur alongwith documents.
iii). Ex.PW1/3 ( Colly. 7 pages) : Certified copy of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of AR of defendant.
iv). Ex.PW1/4: Copy of death certificate his wife.
v). Ex.PW1/ 5 (OSR): Copy of complaint filed by him against the employees of BSES before General Manager, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., Hari Nagar, New Delhi dated 10.12.2012.
vi). Ex.PW1/6 (colly, 2 pages) (OSR): Copy of complaint filed by him before CTR Bhatia, General Manager, BSES, Rajdhani, Hari Nagar, Delhi dated 11.03.2013.
vii). Ex.PW1/7 ( colly. 2 pages)(OSR): Copy of complaint filed by him against the Manager/HOD Enforcement Office, Opposite Deen Dayal Hospital, dated 08.09.2014.
viii) Ex PW-1/8 (OSR) : Copy of complaint before Chief Vigilance Officer, BSES Sub Station Building, CR Park, Delhi dated 17.10.2014.
ix) Ex PW-1/9 (colly. 3 pages) ( OSR): Copy of complaint sent to SHO, PS Hari Nagar, dated 16.01.2014.
x) Ex. PW1/10 (OSR): Copy of complaint sent to ACP, PS Tilak Nagar, dated 06.04.2015.
xi) Ex PW-1/11 (OSR): Copy of complaint sent to DCP, Rajouri Garden, dated 20.04.2015.
xii) Ex PW-1/12 (Colly. 5 pages) (OSR): Copy of notice dated 18.09.2013 sent by Consumer Redressal Forum, Sub Station Building, Sector-5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi and copy of order dated 31.07.2013.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 13/40
xii) Ex PW-1/13 (Colly. 8 pages) (OSR): Copy of legal notice dated 16.02.2019 alongwith receipts dated 18.02.2019 and tracking reports.
PW-1 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of the defendant.
37. In the cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he has studied upto higher secondary and he knows the contents of his affidavit in evidence. PW-1 denied the suggestion that on 06.11.2012, the official of BSES had conducted an inspection at the premises in question i.e. K-8, Grond floor, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi or that prepared inspection report, load report & seizure memo.
38. PW-1 further deposed that he is not aware whether any lab report dated 18.12.2012 was prepared in respect of meter bearing No. 23165155. PW-1 admitted that meter bearing No. 23165155 was installed at his aforesaid premises and the said meter was removed by the BSES on 06.11.2012. However, PW-1 voluntarily deposed that on 03.11.2012, BSES employees came at premises no. K-8, where four other meters were installed and all the said four meters were changed by the BSES except his meter.
39. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know the correct/full name of Mr. Sharmaji as mentioned in para no. 9 of his affidavit in evidence. PW-1 further admitted that he had filed a case in Consumer Redressal Forum against the BSES and the said Forum had imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- upon BSES. The said penalty was imposed against the BSES due to non production of any document by it. PW-1 further deposed that he is not aware Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 14/40 about the disposal of the aforesaid complaint filed before the Consumer Redressal Forum, whether it was disposed off due to pendency of a complaint filed before Special Electricity Court, Tis Hazari.
40. PW-1 admitted that his name is not mentioned in any document prepared by the BSES, in respect of theft of electricity. However, the name of his wife i.e. Smt. Paramjit Kaur was mentioned in the said document.
41. PW-1 further admitted that the BSES had not published in any newspaper the name of his wife Smt. Paramjeet Kaur in respect of theft in question. PW-1 further admitted that after receipt of notice from the Special Electricity Court, his wife had appeared before the said court. He further admitted that the proceeding of the said criminal complaint was abated after the demise of his wife.
42. PW-1 further deposed that he has not filed any other suit/case for declaration for declaring the theft bill in question against BSES before Civil Court. He has not received any notice U/s 163 of Electricity Act from the BSES prior to inspection dated 06.11.2012. PW-1 further admitted that he had not filed any application for discharge of his wife before the Special Electricity Court in case titled BSES Vs. Paramjeet Kaur. PW-1 further admitted that he had also not filed any quashing petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing the proceeding of Special Electricity Court in case titled BSES Vs. Paramjeet Kaur.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 15/40
43. Shri Ibrahim Ali, official from the office of Surveillance Department, C.R. Park, has appeared as PW-2 and brought the summoned record i.e. complaint of Sh. Kanwal Jit Singh dated 05.09.2014, and the same has been exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A. The witness further brought the record of complaint dated 17.10.2014 vide receipt no. 122, and the same has been exhibited as Ex. PW-2/B.
44. Shri Pramod Kumar, Record Keeper from Enforcement, Hari Nagar, BSES has appeared as PW-3 and brought the summoned record i.e. original complaint filed by Sh. Kanwal Jit Singh Nanda vide receipt No. 2071 dated 10.12.2012, vide receipt no. 1647 dated 11.03.2013, receipt no. 1451 dated 17.01.2013, the same are already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5, Ex. PW-1/6 and the complaint dated 17.01.2013 vide receipt no. 1451 is Ex. Pw-3/1(OSR). The witness further deposed that however, there is no complaint vide receipt no. 4716 dated 08.09.2014 in the file brought by him but the same has already been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7 in the examination of PW-1. The witness further deposed that he has not brought the original meter bearing no. 23165155 vide connection no. 1610H6220148 as the same is with Division office of Jank Puri.
45. ASI Ved Prakash from the office of DCP office, appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and deposed that he has not brought the summoned record i.e. complaint filed by Sh.Kanwaljit Singh Nanda vide DD No. 4367 dated 20.04.2015, as the connected registers upto 31.12.2019 have been destroyed as per provision Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 16/40 contained in P.P.R 11.31. PW-4 has placed on record the copy of the order of Asstt. Commissioner of police as Ex. 4/-1 (OSR).
46. ASI Santbir Singh from P.S. Hari Nagar, appeared in the witness box as PW-5 and deposed that he has not brought the summoned record i.e. complaint filed by Sh.Kanwaljit Singh Nanda vide DD No. 26 B dated 16.01.2014, as the connected record upto 31.12.2018 has been destroyed as per provisions contained in P.P.R 11.3. PW-4 has placed on record the letter of SHO, P.S. Hari Nagar as Ex. PW-5/1 and the order regarding destruction of the record issued on behalf of DCP, West, Delhi alongwith list of destroyed record as Mark A.
47. Sh. Surender Singh, JA from the office of Record Room Session, Tis Hazari Courts appeared as PW-6 and brought following the summoned record i.e.
(i) Copy of Criminal Complaint no. 331/2013 U/s 135 r/w 138 of Electricity Act 2003 titled BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd Vs Paramjit Kaur as Ex. PW-6/1.
(ii) Copy of enforcement inspection report dated 06.12.2012 as Ex. PW-6/2(OSR),
(iii) Copy of notice u/s 163 of Electricity Act, 2003 for the address A-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi vide BR no. 1630- 0A-001674, as Ex. PW-6/3 (OSR)
(iv) Copy of report of Mr. Abijeet Kumar, Assistant Manager, BSES dated 05.12.2012 as Ex. PW-6/4 (OSR).
(v) Copies of 4 photographs (out of which two photographs are same of one another) dated 18.01.2007 as Ex. PW-6/5 (OSR).
(vi) The examination in chief ( one page) dated 06.04.2016 and cross-examination ( two pages) dated 12.07.2016 of Sh. Abhijit Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 17/40 Kumar, Assistant Manager as Ex. PW-6/6 (OSR) and Ex. PW-6/7 (OSR).
PW-6 further deposed that he has compared the above said documents with the documents in the case file brought by him.
PW-6 further deposed that the documents exhibited today in his statement are true coy of the documents contained in the judicial file brought by him, however, Ex. PW-6/2 To Ex. PW-6/7 are not certified copies and the exhibit numbers are also not mentioned on the above said documents exhibited today whereas exhibit numbers are mentioned on the documents contained in judicial file brought by him today.
48. Sh. Abhijeet Kumar, Senior Manager, from the office of O & M office, W Block appeared as PW-7 and deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. Cabon copy of enforcement inspection report dated 6.12.2012 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW-6/2 ( OSR). PW-7 further deposed that he has also brought the meter bearing no. 23165155, colour orange and its photograph dated 18.01.2007 and the same has already been exhibited in the testimony of PW-6 as Ex. PW-6/5 (OSR) but he has not brought the original and carbon copy of notice under Section 163 of Electricity Act, 2003 vide reference No. BR-163-0A-001674 of Paramjeet Kaur Vide electricity meter no. 23165155 and CA no. 102864737, which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-6/3, as the same is not traceable.
49. Thereafter PW-7 was confronted with the notice Ex. PW-6/3 and asked, there is cutting in the said notice at point A to B, Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 18/40 what do you have to say? In response to above question, the witness deposed that "it is correct". PW-7 further deposed that it is correct that the address bearing no. A-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi, mentioned on the said notice has been written by him.
50. Vide separate statement of the plaintiff, evidence on behalf of plaintiff stands closed on 05.11.2024.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE.
51. In order to prove its case defendant examined Sh. Abhijit Kumar, Sr. Manager with BSES as DW-1, who tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and he relied upon the documents already exhibited in the evidence of PW-6, as Ex PW-6/1, Ex. PW6/2 & Ex. PW6/3.
52. DW-1 during his cross-examined deposed that his name is mentioned in the list of witness filed on behalf of the defendant. However, after seeing the court file, the witness deposed that there is no list of witnesses filed on behalf of the defendant. No authority letter has been issued in his favour by the defendant to depose in this case.
53. DW-1 further deposed that in December, 2012, he was posted as Assistant Manager with the defendant and posted at Hari Nagar Enforcement Department, West and his working hours were from 9.15 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. DW-1 further admitted that entries were made in the official register of BSES whenever they went for inspection of any premises. The time of departure from the office Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 19/40 and the address of the premise where the inspection of the premises is conducted, are also mentioned in the register. DW-1 further deposed that the total time consumed during the inspection at the premise is also mentioned in the said register. All the proceedings conducted at the premises are not mentioned in the register, only the name of the persons are mentioned in the register, again said all the proceedings conducted at the premises are mentioned in the register.
54. In response to a specific question, whether all the inspection proceedings are required to be mentioned in the register or not, DW-1 deposed that, No. Only time of departure and address of the inspected premises are required to be mentioned in the register.
55. DW-1 further deposed that no entry is made in the register regarding leaving from the premises after conducting the inspection but the time of reaching at office is mentioned in the register. Neither he nor BSES had placed the copy of the register in the case filed by BSES before the Special Electricity Court titled as BSES Vs Paramjeet Kaur CC No. 324035/16. DW-1 further deposed that neither he nor BSES has placed the copy of that register in this case. DW-1 denied the suggestion that they have not placed the copy of that register in this case as well as in the above mentioned case because no inspection was carried out by them on 06.12.2012 at K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi.
56. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that the enforcement inspection report contains two sets i.e. one original and one carbon Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 20/40 copy. The original enforcement inspection report is lying in the office record. The carbon copy of the enforcement inspection report also lying in the office record. DW-1 further deposed that he can produce the both original and carbon copy of enforcement inspection report in the court.
57. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that the notice under section 163 of Electricity Act contains two sets i.e. original and one carbon copy. The original has been sent to the consumer and carbon copy of the same is retained in the office record, however, he can produce the carbon copy of the above said notice in the court.
58. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that the address mentioned on the notice under section 163 as A-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi is written by me. DW-1 voluntarily deposed that he inadvertently mentioned K-8 as A-8. The correct address was K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi). DW-1 admitted the suggestion that he had not given any other notice under section 163 of Electricity Act mentioning the address K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi to the plaintiff or his wife. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that he had cut the two dates in the notice Ex. PW-6/3 and mentioned date 5.12.2012. No public witness was called by him at the time of pasting the notice at the premises of the plaintiff as it was found locked.
59. DW-1 denied the suggestion that on 5.12.2012, he had not pasted any notice at the address K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi, therefore there is no signature of any public witness on the said notice. DW-1 denied the suggestion that the above said notice was Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 21/40 not pasted or sent at K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi, therefore, the address K-8, Fateh Nagar, is not mentioned in the above said notice. DW-1 further deposed that the premises was inspected on 6.12.2012 around 4.30 P.M. The plaintiff was residing at the IInd floor of the premises, at the time of inspection. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that before inspection, he took permission from his seniors. He took permission from Sh. Prabhash Chand, the then DGM. No written permission given by the then DGM or any other senior officers for conducted the inspection and it was only given on telephone.
60. DW-1 further deposed that no public witness was called by him to join the inspection proceedings on 6.12.2012. He never called any public person to join the inspection proceedings to become a public witness. DW-1 denied that as no inspection was carried out at the premises of the plaintiff on 6.12.2012, therefore there is neither any public witness mentioned in the any report nor any signatures of independent person at enforcement inspection report dated 6.12.2012.
61. DW-1 further deposed that he has no knowledge about the case filed by the plaintiff against the BSES before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. DW-1 further deposed that he does not know whether Mr. Surinder Kumar was the Legal Retainer of the defendant in the year 2012- 2013. He does not have any knowledge whether the Ld. P.O. of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi had imposed a cost Rs. 2000/- upon the defendant for not producing the genuine documents deliberately.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 22/40
62. DW-1 further deposed that he has not brought the original and carbon copy of the enforcement inspection report and the carbon copy of the notice u/s 163 of the Electricity Act. DW-1 denied the suggestion that he has not brought the original and carbon enforcement inspection report and the original and carbon copy of notice u/s 163 of Electricity Act in the court today because there was tampering by him in those documents. DW-1 further denied the suggestion that he has not brought the above mentioned documents today in the court because those documents were prepared fraudulently. DW-1 further deposed that he cannot show any document, bye-law, rules regulation etc. of BSES that only the time of departure and address of the inspected premises are required to be mentioned in the register and nothing else is required to be mentioned. In response to a specific question, whether you have tampered on the photographs of the inspection which has been placed on court record, the witness deposed that 'No'.
63. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that the photographs are on the same date which is mentioned on the photographs. DW-1 further admitted that they went for inspection of the premises of the plaintiff on the date which is mentioned on the photographs Ex. PW-6/5 ( Colly). DW-1 denied the suggestion that they had not inspected the premises of the plaintiff K-8, ground floor, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi on 5.12.2012.
64. Vide separate statement of ld. Counsel for the defendant, evidence on behalf of defendant stands closed on 11.03.2025.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 23/40 FINAL ARGUMENTS
65. I have heard final arguments from both sides and perused the case filed. The judgments relied upon by ld. counsels for the parties have been duly considered while passing this judgment.
66. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon one judgment of Hon'ble High court of Orrisa, titled Sh. Sri Naveen Dass & Anr. Vs Smt. Ranjita Singh, FAO NO. 75/2015.
67. Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following judgment:
1. Basudeb Dey Vs Swati Dey & Ors. (reported in (2010) SCC Online Cal 2052).
2. Rajbir Singh Sharma Vs Shri Ram (reported in 2004 (77) DRJ 87).
3. Puran Singh & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors. (reported in (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 205).
4. Natho Devi & Ors. Vs Nand Kishore ( reported in 2012 SCC Online Del 4515).
5. Kapoor Chand Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (Decided by Ms Veena Rani, ld. ADJ-06, West, Tis Hazari Courts).
6. Rajender Singh Vs CS Sakharwal & Ors. ( Decided by Sh.
Balwant Rai Bansal, Ld. ADJ-05 (South-West), Dwarka Courts.
68. Contentions of ld. counsel for the Plaintiff
1. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that due to filing of criminal complaint against the wife of plaintiff and due to Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 24/40 calling plaintiff as well as wife of plaintiff as thief, the defendant has committed offence of defamation and plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation for the same from the defendant.
2. He further argued that plaintiff can file case for damages due to the defamation of his wife as the defamation of the wife of plaintiff, has also effected the reputation of the plaintiff.
3. He further argued that it is proved that false DAE Bill was raised by the defendant as the photographs filed by the defendant in criminal case is of year 2007, whereas the defendant has alleged that inspection of the meter of plaintiff was conducted in the year 2012 and there is also cutting on the notice issued by the defendant u/s 163 of Electricity Act.
69. CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
1. Ld. counsel for defendant has argued that the criminal case was filed against the wife of plaintiff by the defendant on the basis of inspection report, lab. report and other documents as per electricity Act and there was sufficient evidence to prove that theft of electricity had been committed by the wife of plaintiff.
2. He further argued that the said criminal complaint was abated due to death of wife of plaintiff and there is no finding of the court on record that the said criminal case was false or had been filed for ulterior motives.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 25/40
3. He further argued that, only case for damages due to malicious prosecution can be filed on the ground of false criminal complaint but suit for defamation cannot be filed and that case for damages due to malicious prosecution could be filed by the wife of plaintiff and not by the plaintiff.
4. He further argued that plaintiff has failed to prove his case. He further argued that no witness has been examined by the plaintiff to prove that his reputation has been tarnished due to acts of defendant or due to filing of above said criminal complaint, the reputation/dignity/ image of plaintiff or his wife has lower down in the eyes of respectable members of society.
5. Ld. counsel for the defendant has further argued that after the death of wife of plaintiff, no right to sue survives in favour of the plaintiff for filing suit for damages and he has relied upon the following judgment in this regard.
6. In a case titled Basudeb Dey Vs Swati Dey & Ors. (reported in (2010) SCC Online Cal 2052), it has been held that
1. In support of his submission, he has referred to the decision of Puran Singh V. State of Punjab reported in ( 1996) 2 SCC 205, and Girijanandini Devi Vs Bijendra Narain Choudhary reported in AIR 1967 SC 1124.
In the case of Puran Singh (supra) it has been stated in para 4 that a personal action dies with the death of the person on the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona. It has also been clearly stated therein that this doctrine applies in a limited class of actions ex delicto, such as action for damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party. And in other actions Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 26/40 where after the death of party the granting of the relief would be nugatory. The decision referred in Girijanandini Devi ( Supra) also lays down the same doctrine of actio personals.
2. Under the circumstances, upon giving due consideration of the relief sought for by the original plaintiff, I am of the view that the relief sought for is nothing but the personal action of the original plaintiff and so the doctrine of actio personalis shall apply.
FINDINGS ON ISSUES
70. Findings on issue no. 1 & 2
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of Rs. 15,10,000/- as damages? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
71. Issue no. 1 & 2 are taken together as they are inter connected and having mutual bearing.
72. The burden to prove issue no. 1 & 2 is upon the plaintiff and in order to prove the said issue, plaintiff has examined seven witnesses.
73. The plaintiff is claiming damages on the basis of defamation in the present suit, mainly on following grounds:
1. The defendant had made false allegations of electricity theft against the plaintiff and his wife and had filed false criminal complaint of electricity theft against the wife of plaintiff u/s 135 read with section 138 of Electricity Act and created a wrongful Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 27/40 remark in the minds of neighbours and respectable members of the society against the plaintiff and his wife and due to above acts of defendant, the plaintiff has lost his earned reputation and goodwill.
2. The officials of the defendant had called the plaintiff and his wife as thief, in the presence of respectable members of the society and tried to tarnish the image of the plaintiff and his wife by calling as thief. It is further alleged that the defendant had branded the plaintiff and his wife as thief though they were never involved in the aforesaid act in any manner.
74. Defamation is a criminal wrong as well as a civil wrong. Defamation as a criminal wrong has been defined u/s 499 of IPC. The civil law of defamation in India is not codified and it is based on common law, which is applicable to India. The defamation as civil wrong is a tort. Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. Every person has a right to maintain and preserve his reputation. Reputation is not what a person thinks of himself/herself. It is what others think of him/her. The test whether a person has been defamed or not is the view point of right thinking members of the society, what they think about him after publication of defamatory statement. The reputation of a person must be lower down in the eyes of right thinking members after publication of defamatory statement.
75. Reputation forms an intrinsic part of everyone's life. Every citizen of India has fundamental right to protect his reputation and dignity and thus right has been considered as part of fundamental right of life and liberty provided under Article 21 of Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 28/40 the Constitution of India. To protect this right, every citizen has right to approach Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The defamed person can seek monetary damages from the offender by filing civil suit in civil courts and he can also file criminal case against the offender u/s 499 of IPC for getting punished the offender.
76. The defamation may be committed either by way of writing which is described by the terms Libel or by way of spoken words which is described by the term Slander. In libel, the representation is in a permanent form like writing, movie, picture etc. whereas in slander, the representation is in a transient form like spoken words or gesture etc. Some judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on the aspect of Defamation have been mentioned in the succeeding paras.
77. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in a case titled,Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs Durdana Zamir ( 2009) 109 DRJ 357 has held as under:
7. Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. A statement is to be judged by the standard of the ordinary, right thinking members of the society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted in the Plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or CS (OS) 569.06 Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir Page 3 Of 6 regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or dis- esteem or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a person to another's reputation. Since, it is considered that a man's reputation, in a way, is his property and reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any other form of property. Reputation of a man primarily and basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquittance or Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 29/40 general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others.
The reputation spread by communication of thought and information from one to another. Where a person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feeling or cause annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the words must be such which prejudice a man's reputation and are so offensive so as to lower a man's dignity in the eyes of others. Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation.
8. Where the words are used without giving impression of an oblique meaning but the Plaintiff pleads an innuendo, asking the Court to read the words in a manner in which the Plaintiff himself understands it, the Plaintiff has to plead that the libel was understood by the readers with the knowledge of subject or extensive facts as was being understood by the Plaintiff.
11. Moreover, the defendant had a right to make complaints of her grievances to the authorities. Whenever a person makes a complaint against someone to the lawful authorities and in that complaint he makes imputations against the person complained of, it cannot be considered that the person has publicized or publicly made defamatory averments against a person. If a prosecution is initiated against the person on the basis of such averments and the person is acquitted holding that the complaint was false, then only a cause of action arises against the complainant for launching a case for false prosecution or for damages on other grounds. Until and unless a competent court holds that complaint was false, no cause of action arises. Approaching a competent authority and praying that the authority should come to the rescue of the complainant and prevent inference of the plaintiff in the family affairs of the defendant cannot amount to a defamatory imputation per se and even if it is published, it does not tend to show that the defendant had intended to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.
78. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled, " Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy" 2006 AIR (Delhi) 300 has discussed as to what is defamation statement and observed as under:
"Defamation is a public communication which tends to injure the reputation of another. What statements are defamatory, and the span of defences varies from Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 30/40 jurisdiction to jurisdictions but there is common agreement in all jurisdictions that statements that are unflattering, annoying, irksome, embarrassing or hurt one's feelings are not actionable. Common element in all jurisdictions is the potential to injure the reputation."
79. In a case titled Abhijit Mishra Versus Wipro Limited, CS(OS) 31/2021, decided on 14/07/2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has discussed the essential elements for proving civil wrong of defamation for awarding damages and held as under: -
"55. At this juncture, it is imperative to emphasize that every individual is vested with an intrinsic right to reputation, which has been recognised as an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any act that infringes this right is often termed as defamatory. Interestingly, the concept of defamation has been envisaged as an exception to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. It is so because an act of defamation is committed in the course of free exercise of the freedom of speech and expression, when such exercise breaches the permissible limits of speech and transcends from the permissible to the impermissible. To establish any injury or harm to the reputation of a person, whether through spoken or written word, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to demonstrate the fulfillment of the essential elements of defamation. It is necessary to enforce the law of defamation within its strict confines and upon strict fulfilment of the pre-conditions, as any excessive enforcement may have a chilling effect on the cherished freedom of speech and expression. Thus, while dealing with defamation, the Court always treads a cautious path.
56. Civil defamation, though uncodified, in the Indian context is governed by common law principles derived from the English jurisprudence. It refers to a tortious wrong whereby a person makes a false imputation having the tendency to diminish another's reputation in the estimation of right-minded members of society.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 31/40 The essential constituents of civil defamation may be summarised as follows:
(i) a false statement, whether written (libel) or spoken (slander); and defamatory in nature i.e., it must have the effect of lowering the reputation in the eyes of others (right-thinking members of the society);
(ii) (ii) publication of such statement to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
(iii) (iii) identifiability, i.e., the statement must refer to the plaintiff either expressly or by implication
(iv) (iv) Absence of a valid defence such as justification, truth, or privilege.
57. The first essential of civil defamation is the existence of a defamatory statement. The statement must be such that it tends to expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or to cause them to be shunned or avoided by society, thereby lowering their moral or intellectual character in public estimation. It is not sufficient that the words are insulting or unkind; they must carry a false and defamatory imputation when viewed through the lens of a reasonable person. Even innuendo, where defamatory meaning is implied, not stated expressly, can satisfy this requirement, provided it would be so understood by those acquainted with the plaintiff's background.
58. The second requirement is publication, which is the act of communicating the defamatory content to at least one person other than the person defamed. It is well established that communication of the fact to a third party is indispensable for a successful civil action. If the statement is made directly and solely to the plaintiff, the tort of defamation is not complete, as injury to reputation presupposes the perception of others. The nuanced concept of defamation does not take into account the personal perception of the person allegedly defamed; rather, it takes into account the perceptional effect of the statement on others (subjectively addressed as „reasonable man, „reasonable woman or „right thinking members of the society). The essential nature of publication in cases of defamation has also been reiterated by the Court in Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 32/40 Ruchi Kalra and Ors v. Slowform Media and ors . The Court held that publication is a sine qua non for the tort of defamation, as the actionable wrong arises only upon communication of the defamatory matter to a third party, thereby effectuating injury to the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. It emphasised that mere authorship or printing does not suffice; rather, liability accrues upon the act of making the defamatory content known to others, whether through circulation, dissemination, or authorisation. The Court further clarified that jurisdiction vests where the defamatory material is accessed and reputational harm is suffered, and that the tort is consummated only when the defamatory imputation attains public knowledge, thereby giving rise to civil consequences actionable under law. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid read as under:
"Decoding the ambit of "publication in defamation
44. Publication of the defamatory statement is an essential element of the cause of action in a suit for damages for defamation. The injury caused by a libel arises from the effect produced upon its readers. Publication means the act of making the defamatory statement known to any person or persons other than the plaintiff himself (see Salmond on Torts, page-215, Fourteenth Edition). It is the communication of words or doing the defamatory act in the presence of at least one person other than the person defamed. In the case of Khima Nand v. Emperor 16, it was held as under:-"There can be no offence of defamation unless the defamatory statement is published or communicated to a third party, that is, to a party other than the person defamed."
45. Publication is the act of making known the defamatory matter, after it has been written, to some person other than the person about whom it is written. Liability for a publication arises from participation or authorisation. Thus, where a libel is published in a newspaper or book, everyone who has taken part in publishing it, or in procuring its publication, or has Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 33/40 submitted material published in it, is prima facie liable (see Gatley, page-234, Eighth Edition). To put it otherwise, an act of publication involves a wide range actions and could be done in any manner, however, the elementary test is whether the act complained of has exposed the defamatory matter to any person other than the defamed person.
46. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Frank Finn Management Consultants v. Subhash Motwani17 wherein it was held that publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of communication of the libelous article to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. The relevant extracts of the decision read as under
"17. The wrong within the meaning of Section 19 of the CPC in an action for defamation is done by the publication. The defendants are confusing publication in the sense of printing, with publication as in the case of libel. The publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of communication of the libelous article to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. In this regard also see Aley Ahmed Abdi v Tribhuvan Nath Seth 1979 All. LJ 542. If the magazine, as aforesaid, has a circulation at Delhi, then it cannot be said that the wrong would not be done to the plaintiff at Delhi and thus the courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act. A Division Bench in T.N.Seshan v All India Dravida MunnetiraKazahagam 1996 AlHC 4283(AP) has taken the same view. Even If the test of Section 20 of the CPC were to be applied, even then the cause of action in part at least would accrue in Delhi. A Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in the The State of Maharashtrav. Sarvodaya Industries AIR 1975 Bombay 197 has held that thephrase wrong done in Section 19 would clearly take in not only the initial action complained of but its result and effect also and Section19 is wide enough to take in those places where the plaintiff actually suffered the loss because of the alleged wrongful act. It was further held that the court within whose local jurisdiction damage was caused or Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 34/40 suffered or sustained, would clearly answer the requirements of Section 19 for the purposes of the suits mentioned therein. I respectfully concur with the said view and unless Section 19 of the CPC is so interpreted, the purpose thereof would be defeated. Similarly, State of Meghalaya & Ors v Jyotsna Das AIR17 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1049.231991 Gauhati 96 also held that wrong done includes and covers the effect of the act. The counsel for the defendants has relied upon Rashtriya Mahila Kosh v The Dale View 2007 IV AD (Delhi)593 to address the principle of forum non conveniens. With respect, if under the CPC the court has jurisdiction, I find it hard to hold that on the doctrine in international law of forum non conveniens the plaintiff can be non suited. I, therefore, decide issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
47. This Court, in the case of Deepak Kumar v.
Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd.18, held that it is settled law that defamation takes place because a defamatory statement or article or any other material is published i.e. it comes to the knowledge of the public and the appellant/plaintiff is brought down in the estimation of the right- thinking people of the society. It was further held that publication is a sine qua non with respect to defamatory articles because defamation is only caused when the general public learns about them.
48. Thus, it is crystal clear that publication is an essential requirement for the culmination of defamation.
59. The third essential is identifiability. The defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff expressly or by necessary implication, such that an ordinary, reasonable person acquainted with the plaintiff would understand that the statement pertains to them. The aforenoted essential aligns with the maxim certum est quod certum redid potest, i.e., that is certain which can be made certain. It is not necessary that the plaintiff be named; if the description is such Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 35/40 that those hearing or reading it can reasonably infer the plaintiff's identity, the requirement is satisfied.
60. Furthermore, the fourth essential element of civil defamation is the absence of a valid legal defence at the time of publication. For a defamatory statement to be actionable, it must not be protected by any recognized defence under law. Among the well-established defences, justification of truth is one which allows the defendant to escape liability by proving that the impugned statement is substantially true. Another defence is fair comment or honest opinion, which applies when the statement pertains to a matter of public interest and is based on true or provably factual premises, even if the opinion itself is critical or severe. Privilege also operates as a bar to liability. Absolute privilege applies in certain protected contexts such as judicial, parliamentary, or quasi-judicial proceedings, while qualified privilege covers communications made in good faith pursuant to a legal, moral, or social duty. Additionally, statutory protections or express or implied consent of the plaintiff may also defeat a claim. Where any of these defences are successfully invoked, the defamatory nature of the statement is neutralised in the eyes of the law."
80. In view of the above said judgment, these are the following essential elements of civil defamation and plaintiff is required to prove the same, in order to obtain decree for compensation on the ground of defamation
1. The defendant must have made a defamatory statement with respect to the plaintiff, and the said statement must be false.
2. The defamatory statement may be made either by written words or by spoken words.
3. The defamatory statement should lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of "right-thinking members of society."
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 36/40
4. There must be publication of defamatory statement to the third persons. The defamatory statement must be communicated to some person other than the plaintiff. Communication to a third party is essential. Defamation is incomplete if the statement is made only to the plaintiff and not communicated to third person.
5. The defamatory statement must be referred to the plaintiff either directly or by implication. It should be reasonably understood by others to be made about the plaintiff.
6. The defendant must not have a valid legal defence such as:
Justification (i.e., the statement is justified) Truth (truth is a complete defence in civil defamation) Privilege (e.g., statements made in parliamentary or judicial proceedings).
81. Plaintiff/PW-1 has reiterated the contents of his plaint, in respect of allegations of defamation, in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. The plaintiff has not disclosed the names of officials of the defendant, who called him and his wife as thief, in his plaint as well as in his evidence. The evidence of plaintiff is silent in this respect.
82. The plaintiff has also not disclosed the names of his neighbours or any respectable members of society, in whose presence, the above said remarks have been made by the officials of the defendant.
83. The plaintiff has not examined any of his neighbour or any respectable member of the society to prove the imputation of Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 37/40 theft made by any official of defendant and in whose eyes, the reputation of plaintiff and his wife was lower down.
84. The plaintiff is alleging that in the complaint, the defendant had filed photographs of 18.01.2007 whereas the defendant has alleged that the theft of electricity has been committed, in the year 2012 and there is cutting regarding date of the notice and certain contents of the notice, in the notice issued u/s 163 of Electricity Act.
85. The plaintiff has admitted the removal of his electricity meter by officials of defendant on 6.11.2012. PW-1 has denied the preparation of lab report of his electricity meter. Plaintiff has also admitted that the defendant has not published in any newspaper the name of his wife in respect of electricity theft.
86. It is admitted case of the parties that the criminal complaint filed by defendant against the wife of plaintiff was abated due to death of wife of plaintiff and no findings on merit has been given by the court, in the said complaint case. There is no findings of the court that the complaint case filed by the defendant against wife of plaintiff was false and had been filed with ulterior motive by the defendant.
87. The plaintiff or his wife have never challenged the electricity theft Bill issued by the defendant by filing civil suit for declaration.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 38/40
88. The wife of plaintiff has expired. She alone can file suit for malicious prosecution, on the ground of false case of electricity theft filed by defendant against her. Ld. counsel for plaintiff has argued that he has filed the present suit for compensation on the ground of defamation of plaintiff and his wife, committed by the defendant.
89. There is only self serving statement of plaintiff regarding calling of plaintiff and his wife as thief by the officials of defendant, in the presence of respectable members of the society.
The plaintiff has not examined any respectable member of the society or any of his neighbour for proving the above said remarks made by the officials of defendant against plaintiff and his wife. The plaintiff has not even disclosed the name of the officials of the defendant company, who called plaintiff and his wife as thief. The plaintiff has not even disclosed the name of any person of public, in whose presence the above said remarks were made by the officials of defendant. In the absence of any corroborated evidence, the testimony of plaintiff is not reliable. In view of above said facts, it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove that the officials of the defendant had called him and his wife as thief.
90. For claiming damages on the ground of defamation, communication of defamatory statement to the third party is essential but plaintiff has failed to prove the communication of imputation of theft by officials of the defendant company to the third party. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that the fact of filing of criminal complaint against his wife by the defendant, was in the knowledge of third person and due to said fact the reputation Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 39/40 of plaintiff was lower down in the eyes of third persons and he suffered financial loss. In view of above said facts, it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove that due to acts of defendant, his reputation was lower down, in the eyes of respectable members of society.
91. The defendant has acted on the basis of inspection report, lab. report and other documents, as per Electricity Act, 2003 and DERC. Without any finding of the court in the criminal complaint case that the criminal complaint was filed falsely by the defendant, it cannot be held that defendant had filed the false criminal complaint with ulterior motives. Moreover, merely filing of criminal complaint, without any further act of communications defamatory statement to third person. No case for seeking damages is made out.
92. In view of forgoing facts and discussions, it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove issue no. 1 & 2. Accordingly, issue no. 1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Relief
93. In view of finding on issue no. 1 & 2, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed without cost. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. SHIV Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.08.20 17:11:20 +0530 Announced in open Court (SHIV KUMAR) today on 20th August, 2025 DJ-02, West Distt.
Tis Hazari courts Delhi.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 40/40