Delhi District Court
Sh. G.S. Oberoi vs Smt. Narinder Kaur on 16 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 579/15
Sh. G.S. Oberoi
S/o Late Sh. Inder Singh Oberoi
R/o 78, Hemkunt Colony, Greater Kailash,
1st Floor, New Delhi 110048
.......... Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Narinder Kaur
W/o Late Sardar Vashdev Singh Oberoi
R/o 78 GF, Hemkunt Colony,
New Delhi 110048
......... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 10,00,000/ ON ACCOUNT OF
DAMAGES TO THE REPUTATION AND GOODWILL OF THE
PLAINTIFF IN THE SOCIETY
(a) Date of institution : 14.12.2013
(b) Date when judgment reserved : 20.08.2016
(c) Date of Judgment : 16.09.2016
JUDGMENT:
1.Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking damages of Rs. 10 lacs on account of defamation caused to him by the defendant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case as pleaded in the plaint are as under: CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 1 of 16 2.1. The plaintiff is a retired government servant and is residing at the first floor of House No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, Greater KailashI, New Delhi along with his wife, son, daughterinlaw and two grand children aged about 10 years.
2.2. The defendant is the sisterinlaw of the plaintiff who is residing at ground floor of the aforesaid property.
2.3. There is a small room measuring 8 x 8 feet on the mezzanine floor of the aforesaid premises which was used as a "Pooja Ghar" of the family since the building came into existence. In the said room, "Shri Guru Granth Sahib", the holy book of Sikh Religion is kept and same has been used for holy recital and other religious ceremonies.
2.4. The said room was never locked and it was opened for all to perform the prayers and other rituals.
2.5. The father of the plaintiff during his lifetime intended to bequeath the said Pooja Room in favour of the defendant and thus the defendant on the basis of said understanding took Rs. 3 lacs from the plaintiff in the year 2001 i.e. at the time of solemnization of marriage of her two daughters and agreed to get the said Pooja Room registered in the name of the plaintiff, but the defendant did not adhere to the commitments for which plaintiff has initiated the proceedings in the Court of Law.
2.6. The defendant in collusion with her family members to illegally occupy the said Pooja Ghar, arranged a religious function in her house at the ground floor on 14.05.2012 and took the holy book at her premises for the religious recitals. The said function continued till 18.05.2012. 2.7. The plaintiff and his family members participated in the said function. After completion of all the religious ceremonies, the plaintiff CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 2 of 16 requested the defendant to get the Guru Granth Sahib placed in the Pooja Ghar but the defendant and her associates instead of conceding the request of the plaintiff started keeping other belongings and unused articles in the Pooja Ghar and started abusing and assaulting the plaintiff and his family members. 2.8. The plaintiff tried to pacify the defendant that the said room has been used as Pooja Ghar since the last 35 years and same should be used as a Pooja Ghar till any settlement was arrived to this effect, but the defendant and her associates did not listen and started dumping unused articles in the said room. When it was objected by the plaintiff, he and his son were beaten up mercilessly by the associates of the defendant for which plaintiff lodged a police complaint with the Police Station, Greater KailashI, New Delhi on 18.05.2012 on which an FIR bearing No. 66/2012 got registered against the defendant and her associates u/s 308/325/34 IPC which is pending in the Court of Law.
2.9. The wife of the plaintiff was bed ridden as she is chronic heart patient but yet she was involved in the criminal case by the defendant along with the plaintiff and other family members.
2.10. The defendant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction qua the room on mezzanine floor against the plaintiff and during the said proceedings the defendant filed a copy of complaint dated 12.10.2013 submitted to SHO PS Greater KailashI, New Delhi.
2.11. In the said complaint, the defendant has intentionally and deliberately not only dubbed the plaintiff as Goondaa and Notorious but at the same time also dubbed the entire family members of the plaintiff including his two grand daughters as Goondaa and Notorious.
2.12. The plaintiff has been supporting the defendant and her family CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 3 of 16 members for the last more than 17 years after the death of her husband and there has not been any single complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff or any of his family members but the remarks made by the defendant in the complaint agonized, perturbed and traumatized the plaintiff and due to the same, he felt disturbed.
2.13. The defendant not only filed the complaint dated 12.10.2013 in the court of law during the aforesaid proceedings but at the same time she also got circulated the said complaint in the entire Hemkunt Colony and even approached personally to each of the resident of the area and made them to read the entire complaint and due to the same number of the residents approached the plaintiff and his wife and apprised them about the said complaint.
2.14. The defendant deliberately and intentionally used very highly defamatory and derogatory words to lower the image of the plaintiff and his family members in the society just to satisfy her illegal whims and fancies. 2.15. The plaintiff got served a legal notice dated 26.11.2013 upon the defendant by which she was asked to establish the basis on which she dubbed the entire family of the plaintiff as gunda and notorious failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/ However, the defendant did not bother to respond the said notice. Hence, the present suit.
2.16. The plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Rs. 10,00,000/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
3. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement contending that: CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 4 of 16 3.1. She is a senior citizen and widow aged about 64 years and is owner and in possession of entire ground floor and one room on the mezzanine floor of the said property. By virtue of Will executed by the fatherinlaw of the defendant, she has full right on the mezzanine floor and has been enjoying the uninterrupted possession on the ground floor with store room on the mezzanine floor for the last 38 years, however for the last three years, the plaintiff and his family have been resorting illegal means to usurp the property of the defendant.
3.2. On 18.05.2012, there was 'pooja ceremony' at the house of the defendant in which the plaintiff and his family were also invited. The plaintiff and his family left the pooja ceremony without taking Parshad. The servant of the defendant went to the room on mezzanine floor to keep some goods there and when he came back, the plaintiff started shouting in filthy language and even hurled abuses at the defendant.
3.3. The plaintiff pushed the daughter of the defendant when she tried to save her and the plaintiff even ruthlessly slapped her and threatened to kill both the defendant and her daughter.
3.4. The son of the plaintiff also reached there with a hammer and started breaking the lock of the store room and throwing out the goods of the defendant which were lying inside the room. He tried to grab the possession of the said room on the mezzanine floor by keeping his goods inside the room forcibly. The plaintiff and his family used hockey sticks and inflicted grievous injuries upon the defendant pursuant to which an FIR bearing No. 65/12 was lodged against the plaintiff with the Police Station Greater Kailash. 3.5. Under the such circumstances, the defendant had to file a suit for possession and injunction qua the ground and mezzanine floor of the property CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 5 of 16 before the court of Civil Judge.
3.6. During the pendency of aforesaid suit, the defendant had left her house on 10.09.2013 to go to her daughter's house to get her eye surgery completed and on her return, she found the lock of the room on the mezzanine floor of said property broken and all her belongings displaced and disturbed. In natural disgust, the defendant filed a complaint with the police on 12.10.2013 giving vent to her displeasure and anger and also reminding the police authorities about the numerous instances of nuisance attributable to the plaintiff and his family members. The said complaint was made and confined to police station and was never circulated to any member of the society as alleged by the plaintiff.
3.7. The imputation were not made by the defendant with intention to cause damage to the alleged goodwill of the plaintiff and his family members. The complaint dated 12.10.2013 has been filed legitimately with the police authority and was confined to them. The defendant had also written a request letter dated 23.10.2013 to SHO to keep all information related to her as confidential, hence question of circulating the said complaint to the members of the society does not arise.
3.8. The alleged imputations in the complaint dated 12.10.2013 does not come under the umbrella of vulgar and abusive language and do not amount to defamation. They are words used by lay person in daily parlance to extract a feeling of displeasure and anger. The damages of Rs. 10 lacs claimed by the plaintiff on account of loss of sleep, traumatization and disturbance caused by alleged imputations are completely unfounded and have been claimed with sole purpose of harassing the defendant. 3.9. The complaint was made out of bonafide concern for the safety of CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 6 of 16 herself and her belongings and the alleged imputation are the reflection of displeasure and discontent and cannot be associated with malafide intention to defame the plaintiff and his family. The defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication wherein averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed and those made in the written statement have been controverted.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 29.05.2014 by the Ld. Predecessor for adjudication :
1. Whether the plaintiff was defamed by the defendant as mentioned in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 10 lacs as damages on account of defamation? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 18% per annum or any other rate? OPP
4. Relief
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. During his deposition, he also relied upon and exhibited the following documents: Mark A : Copy of FIR No. 66/12 PS GKI, New Delhi Ex. PW1/B1 & : Medical Certificates of his wife Ex. PW1/B2 Smt. Ravinder Kaur Mark B : Copy of medical certificate of his wife Mark C : Copy of complaint dated 12.10.2013 Ex. PW1/D1 to : Copy of legal notice dated 26.11.2013 along Ex. PW1/D4 with courier/postal receipts
7. On the other hand, the defendant chose not to lead any evidence CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 7 of 16 and her evidence was closed vide order dated 24.04.2015.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. On the basis of material available on record my issuewise findings are as under: Issue No. 1 Whether the plaintiff was defamed by the defendant as mentioned in the plaint?
10. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The facts of the case are within the narrow compass. The plaintiff claims that defendant has written a complaint dated 12.10.2013 to SHO PS Greater KailashI, in which she has dubbed the plaintiff and his family members as 'Gunda' and 'Notorious'. The plaintiff further claims that due to the said defamatory remarks he felt humiliated and disturbed and said remarks in the complaint were deliberately and intentionally made by the defendant to malign and tarnish his image in the society. While, on the other hand, the defendant contends that on 10.09.2013 she went to her daughter's house to get her eye surgery completed and when she returned back she found the lock of the room on the mezzanine floor broken and all her belongings displaced and disturbed and in natural disgust she filed a complaint with the police on 12.10.2013 to show her displeasure and anger about the numerous instances of nuisance which were attributable to the actions of the plaintiff and his family members.
11. As per the plaintiff, the alleged imputations made by the defendant in her complaint dated 12.10.2013 amount to defamation due to which his image has been lowered in the eyes of the society and he is entitled to damages for the same. While the defendant contends that imputation made by her in CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 8 of 16 complaint were out of natural disgust to show her anger and displeasure against the plaintiff and she never intended to malign the reputation of the plaintiff.
12. Perusal of the contents of the complaint dated 12.10.2013 Mark C made by the defendant to the SHO, PS Greater KailashI, New Delhi would reveal that the defendant has mentioned the plaintiff and his family as 'Gunda' and 'Notorious'. Now, question arises as to whether the contents of the complaint dated 12.10.2013 are defamatory in nature and same were published in the area of Hemkunt Colony where the plaintiff and defendant are residing and consequently the image of the plaintiff has been tarnished and the people of the colony looked down him as man of 'Gunda' and 'Notorious' character.
13. A defamatory statement is one which tends to injure the reputation of a person. Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. In other words, an imputation which exposes one to disgrace and humiliation, ridicule or contempt is defamatory. Whether a statement is defamatory or not depends upon how the right thinking members of the society are likely to take it. The standard to be applied is that of a right minded citizen, a man of fair average intelligence and not that of a special class of persons whose values are not shared or approved by the fair minded members of the society generally.
14. Therefore before coming to the conclusion as to whether the contents of complaint dated 12.10.2013 are defamatory or not, it would be relevant to discuss the brief sequence of events in which the said complaint was addressed by the defendant to the police authority.
15. It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties that dispute arose between them in the year 2012 when a religious function was organized by the CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 9 of 16 defendant on 14.05.2012 at her house at the ground floor of the said property. The defendant took out the holy book 'Guru Granth Sahib' kept in the Pooja Room at the mezzanine floor for religious function which continued upto 18.05.2012. The plaintiff has alleged that after completion of said function, the defendant and her associates instead of placing the holy book Guru Granth Sahib' in the Pooja Ghar at mezzanine floor which has been kept there for the last 35 years tried to keep other belongings and unused articles in the Pooja Ghar and when same was objected to, the defendant and her associates attacked the plaintiff and his son which resulted into severe injuries to them. The plaintiff lodged a complaint with the police and a case was registered against the defendant u/s 308/325 IPC.
16. The defendant on the other hand has alleged that said Pooja Room on the mezzanine floor is owned by her and after completion of Pooja ceremony on 18.05.2012, the plaintiff and his son tried to grab the possession of said room by keeping some goods therein and when same was objected to by her, she was beaten by the plaintiff with hockey sticks for which FIR was also got registered against the plaintiff bearing No. 65/12 u/s 323/341/506/453/34 IPC.
17. It is also a matter of record that there is civil litigation as well between the parties in respect of title over the Pooja Room at the mezzanine floor and the defendant has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff in which the plaintiff has also filed a counter claim. From these criminal and civil litigation between the parties it is apparent that the parties are at loggerhead and there is dispute between the parties in respect of the title and possession of the Pooja Room at the mezzanine floor of the property as well as cross FIRs against them..
CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 10 of 1618. Perusal of the complaint dated 12.10.2013 addressed to SHO PS Greater KailashI would reveal that the defendant has alleged that she being the widow and an ailing senior citizen has been again dispossessed from her property by his notorious brotherinlaw G.S. Oberoi and his family members. She further narrated that she left her house on 10.09.2013 for her daughter's house for the purpose of Eye Surgery and when she came back on 12.10.2013 at around 1 PM, she found the lock of the store room on the mezzanine floor broken which has been in her possession since last 37 years containing her articles. She further narrated that the plaintiff was granted bail by the court on the basis that he will not create any more ruckus in her life as they are a family of four, husband, wife, a young son and a daughter inlaw and against them she made complaints to PS GKI, RWA Hemkunt Colony, Citizen Welfare Association Hemkunt Colony as well as to the National Women Commission. She further averred that being from a Sikh family, the plaintiff and his goonda family have no respect for their Holy Guru Granth Sahib Ji as he used the holy book to break into the said room when she was away for one month. She further stated that she would like to place this on record as this notorious family have no respect for law and order and are trespassing in her property behind her back with no fear of police or court orders or bail warrants. Therefore, she requested to take strict action against this gunda family who trouble old and ailing senior lady to dispossess her from her house as she is alone and they are 4 with immense capacity to purposely create fights and delay the law process knowingly fully well that she is not capable of fighting physically, emotionally as well as financially and mentally also and she is sick of their abusive language and behaviour and life threats day and night.
19. The contents of the letter dated 12.10.2013 clearly shows the CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 11 of 16 circumstances in which the said letter has been addressed by the defendant to SHO PS Greater KailashI. As per the defendant's version when she returned from her daughter's house, she found her house totally shattered and lock of the store room on the mezzanine floor broken. It is apparent that vide complaint dated 12.10.2013 the defendant has levelled certain allegations against the plaintiff and his family members and requested the competent authority to take action against them. The allegations made in the complaint are to be investigated by the investigating agency with regard to their truthfulness. Though harsh words has been used by the defendant in the said complaint dated 12.10.2013 but same do not convey that the defendant intended to malign the reputation of the plaintiff. A plain reading of these words in isolation of these incidents narrated in the complaint and history of litigation between the parties might constitute defamation with intention to malign the reputation of the plaintiff. However, it is not the case here. The defendant vide complaint dated 12.10.2013 has only informed the acts of the plaintiff to the police, the law enforcing agency and asked them to take action against the plaintiff and it was not the intention of the defendant to make the said complaint public. It is addressed to the police who is legally bound to investigate the allegations made in the complaint under law. The expressions 'Gunda' and 'Notorious' may appear to be harsh words but these are only personal imputations and do not amount to defamation.
20. During his crossexamination, the plaintiff in reply to a question put to him that whether on 20.09.2013 while the defendant had gone to her daughter residence for her treatment, he had entered the room on the Mezzanine floor and clicked photographs inside the room to place them on the court's record, the plaintiff categorically stated that he entered the room and CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 12 of 16 clicked photographs on 20.09.2013. Though, he stated that he does not know whether the defendant had gone to the residence of her daughter. This statement of the plaintiff prima facie supports the allegations of the defendant made in the complaint and therefore out of anger and disgust when she found her articles and belongings scattered and lock of the room broken, she made the complaint and used the expression 'Gunda' and 'Notorious family' for the plaintiff and his family members.
21. It is also admitted fact that defendant is a widow aged about 64 years living all alone at the ground floor and there are various litigations between the parties. Therefore, when the defendant found the locks of her room broken and articles and her belongings in a shattered condition, in the said compelling circumstances, complaint has been lodged by her against the plaintiff and it cannot be said that defendant intended to make the said complaint public in order to malign the reputation of the plaintiff.
22. Even the plaintiff during his crossexamination has also used the word 'goons' for the relatives and friends of the defendant who had gathered in the pooja ceremony at the house of the defendant, when he stated that on 14.05.2012, the defendant had taken the Guru Granth Saheb from the Pooja Room on the ground floor to conduct the Puja, thereafter on 18.05.2012 when the puja concluded the defendant refused to put the Guru Granth Saheb on the Puja Ghar and instead her Goons tried to put some goods of the defendant in the Puja Room on the mezzanine floor of the said property. As such, the expressions 'notorious' and 'gunda' family in the complaint dated 12.10.2013 may be harsh but these expressions are being used by the common man in his daily parlance when he is involved in bitter criminal and civil litigations as the expression 'goons' is used by the plaintiff also as noted above.
CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 13 of 1623. Though the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the defendant has not only dubbed the plaintiff as gunda and notorious but has also dubbed the entire family members of the plaintiff as gunda and notorious which also included two grand daughters of the plaintiff aged about 10 years old. The Ld Counsel for plaintiff laid much emphasis that the defendant has even not spared the two minor grand daughters of the plaintiff and dubbed them as gunda and notorious. However, I do not find any merit in this argument of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. In the complaint dated 12.10.2013, the defendant has stated that plaintiff and his family are 4 persons i.e. the plaintiff, his wife, son and daughterinlaw and she is alone. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant had included the two minor grand daughters of the plaintiff while dubbing the plaintiff as gunda and notorious.
24. Another aspect of the matter is that the complaint dated 12.10.2013 was made by the defendant to the SHO PS Greater Kailash I for taking action against the plaintiff and his family members for the alleged acts of trespassing and nuisance as narrated in the complaint. The plaintiff has contended that the said complaint was circulated by the defendant in the Hemkunt Colony and number of residents of the area approached the plaintiff and his wife about the said complaint, but the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the said complaint was circulated by the defendant in the colony or even any resident of the colony approached the plaintiff about the said complaint and this led to lowering the image of the plaintiff in the estimation of the residents of the colony.
25. The plaintiff while appearing in the witness box as PW1 though in his crossexamination stated that Sh. Inderjit Singh Dhillon, General Secretary, RWA gave him the photocopy of the complaint. He also stated that CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 14 of 16 Sh. Surjeet Singh Bindra also shown him the photocopy of the complaint. It is pertinent to note her that the Court has noted the demeanour of the plaintiff while recording his evidence and observed that the witness is taking time and it appears that he is coining the words. The plaintiff stated that these were the only two persons who showed him the complaint. He could not tell the date on which the above mentioned people had given him the copy of complaint. Further, the plaintiff has not examined even these two persons from the colony to prove that they had handed over the copy of complaint to him and took bad impression about the plaintiff. Plaintiff though has alleged that consequent to the complaint dated 12.10.2013 he felt ashamed, traumatized and tortured and his health got deteriorated and his wife also suffered heart attack. But in the crossexamination, he admitted that he has not filed any document on record to show that his wife suffered heart attack and she was operated due to the said complaint and his health also got deteriorated due to the complaint dated 12.10.2013 made by the defendant.
26. As such, the plaintiff has failed to prove that complaint dated 12.10.2013 was circulated and the residents of the Hemkunt Colony in which the plaintiff is residing looked down him as 'Gunda' and 'Notorious' person and same caused damage to his reputation and image in the eyes of the residents of the colony.
27. In view of aforesaid discussions, it cannot be said that the contents of the complaint dated 12.10.2013 are defamatory and the defendant intended to malign the reputation of the plaintiff or that the plaintiff suffered any injury to his reputation and goodwill due to the said complaint. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
CS No. 579/15 G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 15 of 16 Issue No. 2 and 3Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 10 lacs as damages on account of defamation?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 18% per annum or any other rate?
28. In view of my findings under Issue No. 1, the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages or interest as claimed. Hence, these issues are decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
29. As a sequel to my findings under Issue No. 1 to 3, the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
th
on 16 September, 2016 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No. 579/15
G.S. Oberoi Vs. Narinder Kaur Page 16 of 16