Bangalore District Court
Shri Venkataraja Nellitheertha Bhat vs Samatha M Balla on 10 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2018
PRESENT:- SRI.S.A.Chikkorde, M.A.,LL.M
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.10435/15
Plaintiff/s : Shri Venkataraja Nellitheertha Bhat
Aged about 68 years
No.38/2, "Sathya Nivas".
19th Main Road
Near Kidney Foundation Hospital
Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore-70
(By Sri.SMD., Advocate)
.V/s.
Defendant/s : 1 Samatha M Balla
Aged about 34 years
No.B301, Amoda Valmark Apartment
Doddakamanahalli Main Road
Off Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore South 560 083.
Date of institution
of the suit : 18.12.15
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction] : Damages/Compensation
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence: 19.1.18
2 O.S. No.10435/15
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 10.9.18
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : -02- -08- -22-
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant directing to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of defamatory statements made by the defendant and has lowered the intellectual and moral character of the plaintiff and to award costs of the suit and such other orders as this court deems fit.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the father-in-law of the defendant and the defendant got married to Mr.Hariprasad Nellitheertha who is the son of the plaintiff on 9.12.05 as per Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies at Sri. P.M.Kalayan Mantapa, Bangalore and were leading married life and out of wedlock they had a son. There was too much of humiliation, harassment, violence caused by the defendant and her family members towards the son of the plaintiff on account of which litigations are pending against them and the defendant has filed a divorce petition against the son of the complainant Hariprasad Nellitheertha in Hon'ble Family Court in addition to a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in Crl. Misc No.84/13 and the same is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble MMTC-IV Court, Bangalore. The petitioner is aged, 3 O.S. No.10435/15 senior citizen and accountant by profession with a well reputed firm M/s.Bangalore Surgical and put in long service and was serving as MANAGER. During his tenure in the company as well as in the neighborhood where he resides, he has earned and acquired good acquaintance and reputation over the period of years he has been in service. He has maintained good relationship with one and all thus acquiring respect and dignity in society. The plaintiff has hence resigned from service eon 1.10.11. The company issued a letter on November 10th 2015 appreciating the contribution of the plaintiff. The final dues of the plaintiff were cleared on December 30th 2011. The copy of the letter issued by the company asunder the Bangalore Surgical Employees' Group Gratuity Scheme. The plaintiff however due to this good work, dedication, sincerity and the good name he has earned over the years, was requested by the Company, M/s. Bangalore Surgical to continue to help them and so the plaintiff provides consultation to the firm M/s. Bangalore Surgical on a part time basis whenever he can. He has earned a good name in the society as well as in his work place. He is very well respected in the work place. He is very well respected in the work place with all the employees as well as others looking upon him to be a man of very good character and impeccable manners and behavior. The defendant in a bid to create problems for the plaintiff's family has been trying had to harm the plaintiff by doing such acts and deeds that would bring down the image of the plaintiff in society. She has filed some petitions for alleged domestic violence against the plaintiffs 4 O.S. No.10435/15 son Hariprasad Nellitheertha and the plaintiff and other members of the family. The case is pending adjudication. The defendant in addition to these is on a bid to create physical and mental harm to the plaintiff and his family she also with the sole motive of defaming the plaintiff has filed a fe RTI applications baselessly on receipt of which some authorities have approached the plaintiff and his family members to seek their permission to provide the information sought under RTI which again has caused immense harassment as well as harm to the reputation to the plaintiff in the society. That the defendant taking this to the next level has now filed an application claiming to be a social activities to the Commissioner, Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka, accusing the plaintiff of "Cheating the employees of Bangalore Surgical by underpaying the employees and also threatening them off dire consequences to not disclose actual facts, and portraying false reports" which are per se defamatory. O receipt of this complaint, officials from the Labour Department visited the premises of the company M/s. Bangalore Surgicals to enquire about the alleged irregularities in payment and about the plaintiffs role in it. There was a huge gathering of persons including the current employees of the company, the officials of the Labour Department after questioning the officials and the plaintiff for a long time satisfied themselves about the payments being made as per law. It can be very well understood the mischief intended to be caused by the defendant and the intention of the defendant to cause harm to the plaintiff and his family by 5 O.S. No.10435/15 further damaging him reputation and defaming him. The defendant with the sole intention of defaming the plaintiff has indulged in sending the letter knowing fully well that if some enquiry or action is taken against the plaintiff, it would result in serious maligning of his reputation that has been built over the years through sheer sincerity, good will as well as honesty. The plaintiff now has to put up with the enquiries at his work place from some of the employees who want to know if at some time he has done anything irregular and the like. The looks that are directed at him also by the people around is quite agonizing.
The defendant further filed a complaint against the plaintiff with Drug Control Department alleging that the plaintiff and his sons are stealing and selling drugs at a lower price. The officials landed at the office and started questioning the defendant. The defendant works only in the accounts and not in any other capacity in the firm where he works part time. The defendant has made such baseless allegations which are aimed at harming the reputation and the good name the plaintiff has earned in his long stint working hard with sincerity, dedication and diligence. The plaintiff is a senior citizen for whom good name and reputation is very important and this calculated attempt by the defendant is solely to harm that and caused irredeemable damage to the plaintiff.
The defendant know very well the kind of good name and reputation for being a person of integrity and honesty enjoyed by the plaintiff over the years at both his work place 6 O.S. No.10435/15 as well as in his personal circle and the defendant know very well that by hitting out and making such false defamatory allegations, she can cause a dent and harm the reputation enjoyed by the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant also with the intention that the plaintiff may also be removed from working part time where he is consulting at the present has indulged in such defamatory statements.
The defendant has committed this act only with the sole intention of defaming and damaging the reputation of the plaintiff and his family members. The intention of the defendant is very evident from the fact that she has been resorting to those kind of malicious applications being filed under the guise of right to information in addition to making frivolous and false defamatory complaints aimed to harm the plaintiff and his family reputation, respect and good will. The intention can be known from the fact that the defendant though fighting many cases in the courts against the son of the plaintiff has in fact filing an RTI application asking for the death certificate of her own husband and the plaintiffs son, Mr.Hariprasad Nellitheertha with the PIO, the Chief Secretary of Karnataka, though knowing that he is alive and she meets him during the visitation that the court has awarded for her husband to meet his son every week.
The intention of the defendant to harass the plaintiff and his family members is very much evident from all these as also the fact that the defendant is hell bent on harming the reputation of the plaintiff. She has filed this complaint with the idea of the labour inspectors and others personnel visiting 7 O.S. No.10435/15 the work place where the plaintiff is consulting and to cause harm to the reputation that has been built over a long period of time. This entire episode is to ensure that there is publicity to the complaint and also that the plaintiff is defamed publicly. The plaintiff is aged 68 years and this has caused a lot of mental tension to him and his relatives too have started questioning him about the allegations complained by the defendant in her complaint to the labour authorities and the drug control department.
In the absence of any proof or any evidence, and in the very bald wordings, it is evident that the intention to defame is strong and malicious. Considering the fact that the plaintiff has a very high reputation and is a senior citizen who is well respected, it is clear that the words used as calculated to cause harm to the plaintiff. That the words used by the defendant in the letters and forms as per se defamatory. The plaintiff is a respectable man who has served as an employee and making statements that he is indulging in the acts of intimidating lowers his credit and stature in the society and further the calculated statements are made to defame the reputation of the plaintiff in form of innuendoes. The various applications filed by the defendant under the guise of right to information, but calculated to tarnish the image and cause inconveniences to the plaintiff. The defendant has thus intentionally and with full knowledge defamed the plaintiff which has lowered the intellectual and moral character of the plaintiff in turn causing extensive damage to the plaintiff which cannot be set right. The defendant has used written 8 O.S. No.10435/15 words meant to be read and thus made and published imputations concerning the plaintiff which are false and not in good faith which is only intended to harm and knowing full well and having reason to believe that the said imputation will harm the reputation and character of the plaintiff. On account of the loss of reputation as well as mental agony an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- which is under this courts jurisdiction. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for the above said relief's.
3. Upon service of the suit summons, the defendant though appeared before this Court on the date fixed for appearance but failed to file written statement inspite of sufficient opportunity given and hence taken as written statement not filed.
4. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 by way of filing his affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and in all got marked two documents at Exs.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and closed his evidence. But inspite of giving sufficient opportunities neither defendants nor her counsel come forward to cross-examine PW-1. Accordingly, cross-examination of PW-1 was taken as nil. Where as defendant has not chosen to step into the witness box inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to her. Accordingly evidence of defendant taken as nil and thereafter the case is posted for arguments.
9 O.S. No.10435/155. Heard arguments and perused written arguments as ell as materials available on record.
6. On the basis of the above materials, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.25,00,000/- for alleged defamatory statement made by the defendant as his social status has been degraded?
2. What order or decree?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- On perusal of entire records of this case it reveals that the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of defamatory statements made by the defendant and has lowered the intellectual and moral character of the plaintiff, to award costs of the suit and to pass such other relief's 10 O.S. No.10435/15
9. In this case, plaintiff in order to substantiate his case, has got examined himself as PW-1 by filing his affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C., by reiterating all material plaint averments as PW-1 and got marked two documents Ex.P.1 and 2 i.e., Ex.P.1- Certified copy of reply given by the BBMP dt.1.10.15 to the plaintiff, Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of the report dt.15.10.15 together with the enclosures submitted by Labour Department, Govt. of Karnataka.
10. It is pertinent to note that though opportunity was given neither defendant nor her counsel came forward either to cross-examine PW-1 or to adduce evidence in order to rebut the evidence of PW-1 and above documentary evidence since, they remained absent before the court through out the proceedings. Therefore, under these circumstances evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. It is pertinent to note that having regard to the defendant in this case who is none other than the daughter in law of the plaintiff, has not chosen to file her written statement to contest this case nor her counsel has come forward to cross-examine PW-1 inspite of giving sufficient opportunities and also defendant has not chosen to adduce her rebuttal evidence either oral or documentary and therefore, she fails to step into the witness box. Keeping inview of this aspect it is to be seen whether entire oral evidence and above documentary evidence are suffices to probabalize the case of the plaintiff as referred above supra.
11 O.S. No.10435/1511. On going through the entire evidence of PW-1 in chief though he has reiterated material plaint averments in respect of allegations made against the defendant and her conduct not only by filing Criminal Miscellaneous petition before the MMTC 6th Court Bangalore, in Cr. Misc. 84/13 under the D.V. Act against his son Hariprasad and his family members which is said to be still pending before the said court. Apart from this PW-1 has deposed that on a bid to create physical and mental harm to him and his family members and also with sole motive of defaming has filed few RTI applications baselessly on receipt of which some authorities have approached him and his family members to seek their permission to provide information sought under the RTI, in this regard there are no particulars about the date on which competent authority of RTI sought information either from the plaintiff or from his family members. Therefore, there is no cogent proof produced by PW-1 before this court. Apart from this having regard to another allegations made by the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of that defendant filed an application claiming to be a social activities to the Commissioner, Department of Labour, Govt. of Karnataka accusing him "Cheating the employees of Bangalore Surgicals by under paying the employees and also threatening them of dire consequences to not actual facts and portraying false reports", which are said to be defamatory. So, far as this aspect is concerned PW-1 has produced Ex.P.2 i.e., the Certified copy of the report dt.15.10.2015 together with enclosures submitted by Labour Dept. Govt. of Karnataka. He has not chosen to got examined any of the competent officials 12 O.S. No.10435/15 of the said Govt. Department, either by producing such witness before the Court or by getting summoning such witnesses through the process of this Court in order to prove the veracity of Ex.P.2 or the RTI reports which were sought for by the defendant as against the plaintiff with regard to information sought for therefore it is clear that if the entire evidence of PW.1 is assessed objectively it clearly goes to show that since plaintiff and his son were said to be dragged to the some court proceedings as referred above supra by the defendant, it is not suffice only to allege the malice or dishonest intention on the part of defendant, in view of their strained relationship between them because of certain proceedings were taken place between them unless and until plaintiff establishes that the above referred court proceedings and also alleged imputations made against the plaintiff are concerned were proved and the Court dealing with the matters in the above proceedings held to be false resulting degrading reputation or dignity of by the plaintiff or his son as the case may be and in order to substantiate and prove this material aspect PW.1 has not produced any cogent proof or material in order to hold defendant liable towards the suit claim of the plaintiff. It is also pertinent to note that the mere allegations of the plaintiff the above defendant based on their strained relationship, the entire facts and circumstances and the above materials available on record would not suffice to hold that defendant has defamed the plaintiff with intention or having knowledge in order to lower the intellectual and moral character of the plaintiff in the society or public at large.
13 O.S. No.10435/15Hence, if all these circumstances are taken into consideration, though there is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendant independently either oral or documentary from her side, unchallenged evidence of PW.1 and documentary evidence of Exp 1 and P.2 are not sufficient to probabalise the case of the plaintiff therefore if all these circumstance are taken into consideration in the light of certain case laws referred in the written arguments and additional written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the defendant in this case that is 1) M/S Tara Ajai Singh Vs. Mr.R.P.Sharma 2012, 2) Prem Harijith Singh and another Vs.Nirmal Harijith Singh 2012 by Punjab and Hariyana High Court
3) Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India and others wherein it is held that:-
" A man's 'character,' it is sometimes said, is what he in fact is, whereas his 'reputation' is what other people think he is. If this be the sense in which you are using the words, then a libel action is concerned only with a man's reputation, that is, with what people think of him: and it is for damage to his reputation, that is, to his esteem in the eyes of others, that he can sue, and not for damage to his own personality or disposition"
Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramanian Swamy 2006 Delhi High Court has accepted three defenses for defamation, wherein it is held that:-
14 O.S. No.10435/15"95.Traditional defenses to an action for defamation have now become fairly crystallized and can be compartmentalized in 3 compartments:
truth, fair comment and privilege. Truth, or justification, is a complete defense. The standard of proof of truth is not absolute but is limited to establishing that what was spoken was 'substantially correct'. Fair comment offers protection for the expression of opinions. Standard of proof is not that the Court has to agree with the opinion but is limited to determine whether the views could honestly have been held by a fair- minded person on facts known at the time. Unlike defense of truth, defense based on fair comment can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defamer acted with malice. Similar is the situation where the defense is of qualified the public good. Protection of qualified privilege is lost if actual malice is established. In public interest, absolute privilege is a complete defense. Rationale of absolute privilege being restricted to Court proceedings or proceedings before Tribunals which have all the trappings of a Civil Court and Parliamentary proceedings is that if threat of defamation suits room large over the heads of lawyers, litigants, witnesses, judges and parliamentarians it would prohibit them from speaking freely and public interest would suffer."15 O.S. No.10435/15
12. If the views taken in the above case laws referred by the advocate for plaintiff in his written arguments as well as additional written arguments, are taken into consideration in the light of entire facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that, the view taken in the above case laws are quiet different from the present facts and circumstances of the case in hand therefore this court is of the considered view that since plaintiff has failed to probabalize and prove his case that the alleged imputations as per material placed before this court on record are concerned do not attract to any of the exceptions provided for defamation, has failed to establish that he is entitled for compensation from the defendant as prayed for, accordingly this point is answered in negative.
13. POINT.2- In view of my answer to the above point.No1 as well as for the facts and circumstances observed therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th of September, 2018).
(S.A.Chikkorde) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
16 O.S. No.10435/15ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
PW.1: Venkataraja Nellitheertha Bhat List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of reply given by the BBMP dt.1.10.15 to the plaintiff Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the report dt.15.10.15 together with the enclosurers submitted by Labour Department, Govt. of Karnataka List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:
NIL List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defendants:
NIL (S.A.Chikkorde) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
10.9.2018 P-RRI D- L.I For judgment JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE TYPED ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
18 O.S. No.10435/15(S.A.Chikkorde) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.