Delhi District Court
D.L. Chandhok(Sr. Citizen-70 Yrs.) vs Rameshwar And Anr on 23 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No.8695/2016
CNR No.DLST01-003351-2016
Shri D.L. Chandhok
Secretary General,
Federation of CWC Employees Unions,
WZ-677, Shiv Nagar Extension,
Jail Road, New Delhi 110058. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Shri Rameshwar,
Regional Manager,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Regional Office,
Bay No.39-42, Sector 31,
Chandigarh.
Also at:
C/o Corporate Office
Central Warehousing Corporation,
4/1, Siri Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016.
2. Shri Chanchal,
CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 1 of 24
Consultant,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Chandigarh Regional Office,
Bay No.39-42, Sector 31,
Chandigarh. .....Defendants
Date of filing of suit : 09.08.2016
Date of arguments : 23.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 23.08.2024
Suit for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for defamation
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present case against the defendants seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for their making defamatory, false, mischievous, intimidating statements against the plaintiff.
2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a Secretary General of the Federation of Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Unions. The plaintiff has been holding the office of Secretary General of said Federation for the last many decades.
3. The defendants are officers of the Central Warehousing Corporation. Defendant no.1 is a Regional Manager and the defendant no.2 who was storage and inspection officer has been working as consultant after the retirement.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that plaintiff is a prominent CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 2 of 24 office bearer and leader of the Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Unions (Regd.) and has a very high class image and name in thousands of employees not only of the Central Warehousing Corporation but of other departments also and they elected him as their leader because of his honestly and unblemished public records in every election for decades. It is further stated that the defendants in their letter No.CWC/RO-CH/ESTT/UM/Vol.-N/2015-16/4322 dated 06.08.2015 criminally intimidated and defamed the plaintiff by mischievously and falsely alleging that the complainant was working for his personal gains and misusing his position as Secretary General of the Federation of employees unions.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that defendants also made further defamatory statement against the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff was responsible for alleged misappropriation of 9600 bags and 7344 bags of rice stocks at Moga I and Moga II offices of the Central Warehousing Corporation even when the plaintiff is neither its employee or board member nor has any other concern with the custody of the alleged misappropriated bags. He has also not been a Punjab based and is resident of Delhi.
6. It is further averred in the plaint that the defamatory and intimidating statements made by the defendants against the plaintiff are "You are hereby informed to be careful while referring CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 3 of 24 the issue to the Senior Officer and not to use undue influence of your position and pressure for personal gain. You are further advised to own the responsibility of the misappropriation of the rice stocks of 9600 and 7344 bags at CW Moga I and Moga II being head of the Federation in the interest of the organization." It is stated that said letter was signed for defendant no.1 by defendant no.2 on 07.08.2015 and delivered to the plaintiff on or about on 09.08.2015 and the defendant no.1 did not withdraw his said false and defamatory statements contained therein despite letter dated 14.12.2015 sent to him by the plaintiff for the same.
7. Further that defamatory, mischievous and intimidating letter of the defendants was circulated in the office of the Central Warehousing Corporation and the Labour Commissioner's office in the Ministry of Labour, Govt of India, New Delhi also by way of endorsements made on the same. This further stated to have caused irreparable damage to the reputation of the plaintiff in the government departments as well as where he deals with the issues concerning welfare of thousands of employees. It also amounted to creating false evidence concerning alleged misappropriation of rice stocks of Moga office of the defendants for shielding the real culprits who might be their favourites.
8. It is further stated that a complaint dated 30.06.2016 was made to the police against the defendants requesting for registering CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 4 of 24 FIR against them inter alia under section 499, 192, 425 and 503 IPC but police did not register any case against them.
9. Plaintiff has further stated in his plaint that the above statements/averments made by the defendants are patently defamatory and false as per own knowledge of the defendants. The said statements have tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff and damages his social standing and goodwill in society. It is also stated that these malicious, vexatious, false and incorrect statements were mad with a sole motive to malign the fine social and personal standing and image of the plaintiff in his social and personal circles and to cause him to suffer material and personal/mental injury and anguish thereto, thus giving rise to cause of action to the plaintiff against the defendants.
10. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. Defendants appeared and filed their respective written statements.
11. Defendant no.1 stated in his written statement that letter dated 06.08.2015 does not make any allegations of the alleged misappropriation against the plaintiff and rather the same is advisory in nature. It is further stated that no injury or damage was caused to the reputation of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.
12. It is further stated that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of publication of the said statement contained in para 7 of the plaint and letter dated 06.08.2015 so as to CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 5 of 24 constitute libel as per law, the plaintiff has not pleaded any slander, as the said letter was addressed solely to the plaintiff only and not to any other third party and the alleged communication to the senior officers was made in exercise of the power and duty of the defendant no.1 as the Regional Manager of Chandigarh Region as per law and the rule book of the Corporation and that defendant no.1 was not intended of any malice, ill will, contempt or defamatory towards the plaintiff in particular. It is further stated that defendant no.1 had authored letter dated 06.08.2015 in exercise of his duty and power as the Regional Manager as per law to maintain law and order in the Chandigarh Region and communicated the said letter to authority/seniors under the mandate of the laws and rule book.
13. It is also stated by the defendant no.1 that impugned letter was an official communication and was circulated for the general information of the workers of the Corporation and as such there was no malafide intention to defame the plaintiff per se. Defendant No.1 denied the version of the plaintiff and sought dismissal of the suit.
14. Defendant no.2 has also filed his separate written statement. It is stated by the defendant no.2 that material as contained in letter dated 06.08.2015 was approved by the Competent Authority i.e. then Regional Manager and that she had signed it in the discharge CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 6 of 24 of her official duties as per procedure and practice only. It is further stated that contents of letter dated 06.08.2015 were only advisory in nature to the plaintiff. It is further stated that through subject letter, defendant no.2 simply conveyed the decision of higher authorities and her role is not more than that of a postman. It is also stated that Corporation has not been impleaded as one of the defendant, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Defendant no.2 also denied the version of the plaintiff and sought dismissal of the suit.
15. Plaintiff has filed separate replications to the Written Statements. Contrary averments were denied as false and incorrect and the stand pleaded in the plaint was reiterated and reaffirmed as correct.
16. It is pertinent to mention herein that during trial, defendant no.2 had stopped appearing and as such vide order dated 27.02.2023, defendant no.2 was proceeded exparte.
17. Vide order dated 12.10.2018, following issues were settled:
(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the defendants for making defamatory, false, intimidating statements against the plaintiff?OPP (2)If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate?OPP (3)Whether the suit is without any cause of action?OPD CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 7 of 24 (4)Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties?OPD (5)Relief.
18. Plaintiff entered into witness box as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon letter dated 06.08.2015 as Ex.PW1/1, letter dated 14.12.2015 as Ex.PW1/2 and complaint dated 30.06.2016 as Ex.PW1/3. He was cross examined and discharged.
19. PW2 Sh. Amrit Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He was cross examined and discharged.
20. PW3 Ms. Shweta Singh, Labour Enforcement Officer had brought summoned record i.e. letter No.CWC/RO-CH/Estt./UM/ Col-N/2015-16/4322 dated 06.08.2015 Ex.PW1/1. She deposed that said letter was received by their office. She further deposed that matter was referred to Ministry of Labour and Employment where from sanction for filing of prosecution complaint against the erring employers has already been received and a prosecution complaint was being filed. She filed compliance report of summons of court and exhibited the same as Ex.PW3/1. She was cross examined and discharged.
21. PW4 Sh. L.N. Meena, AGM, CWC, Regional Officer, Jaipur tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A stating that he was appointed as Investigation officer by the MD of CWC CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 8 of 24 to investigate with regard to misappropriation of rice stocks of 7344 at CW Moga-II; during investigation he found that employees posted at Moga II misapproriated aforesaid rice bags numbering 7344; plaintiff was not concerned in any manner with the misappropriation of aforesaid rice bags which were misappropriated by the staff of Moga II; letter dated 06.08.2015 is a false letter.He was cross examined and discharged.
22. Defendant no.1 entered into witness box as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon documents i.e. Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/2 (colly), Ex.DW1/3, Ex.DW1/4 and Ex.DW1/5 and Ex.DW1/6.
23. DW2 Sh. Mahender Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/1. He was cross examined and discharged.
24. DW3 Sh. S.K. Sharma tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW3/1. He was cross examined and discharged.
25. DW4 Sh. P.K. Jain tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/1. He was cross examined and discharged.
26. I have heard final arguments and perused the record.
27. It is pertinent to understand the legislative and juridical intent behind the issue pertaining to Civil Defamation.
Essentials of Defamation:
28. There are three main essentials of Defamation viz.-
CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 9 of 24
29. (i)The statement must be published: 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.
30. The standard to be applied is that of a layman/ 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.
31. In Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy AIR 2006 Delhi 300 an inquiry commission was setup for examining the facts and circumstances relating to assassination of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi. The defendant, at a press conference alleged that the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had prior information that LTTE cadre would make an assassination bid on the life of Rajiv Gandhi. The plaintiff was engaged as a Sr. Counsel to the then CM of TN. In discharge of his professional duties, the plaintiff cross examined the defendant. During the proceeding, the defendant in the written conclusive submission, alleged that the plaintiff had been receiving money from LTTE, a banned organization. The statement by defendant was ex facie defamatory.
32. (ii)The statement must refer to the plaintiff: If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 10 of 24 liable.
33. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Harsh Mendiratta v. Maharaj Singh 95 (2002) DLT 78; said that an action for defamation was maintainable only by the person who was defamed and not by his friends or relatives.
34. (iii)Defamation must be published to a third person:
Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the person defamed and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation lies.
35. In the case of Mahender Ram v. Harnandan Prasad AIR 1958 Pat 445 it was said when a defamatory letter is written in urdu to the plaintiff and he doesn't know Urdu, he asks a third person to read it, it is not defamation unless it was proved that at the time of writing letter defendant knew that urdu was not known to the plaintiff.
DEFENCES AVAILABLE:
36. There are three defences of defamation namely
(i)Justification or truth: Under criminal law, merely proving that the statement was true is no defence but in civil law merely showing truth is a good defence. A statement is not defamatory if it is both true and made or published for the public good. Whether the statement is in the public interest is a question of fact.
CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 11 of 24
37. In Chaman Lal v. State AIR 1970 SC 1372 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised certain factors in determining whether an imputation was made in good faith--namely, (i) the circumstances under which the imputation was made, (ii) whether there was any malice, (iii) whether the accused inquired into the facts before making the imputation; (iv) whether the accused acted with sufficient care and caution; and (v) whether there is a preponderance of probability that the accused acted in good faith.
38. In the landmark case of Alexander v. N.E. Rly (1865) 6 B&S 340, the plaintiff had been convicted of riding a train from Leeds without having purchased a valid ticket. The penalty was a fine and a period of imprisonment of fourteen days if he defaulted on the fine. However, following the conviction, the defendant published a notice that the plaintiff was convicted and issued a fine or three weeks imprisonment if in default. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had committed libel by describing the penalty issued to him inaccurately. The defendants argued that the conviction was described with substantial and sufficient accuracy and the words so far as they differed in their literal meaning from the words of the conviction were not libellous. Judgment was given in favour of the defendants. The gist of the libel was that the plaintiff was sentenced to pay a sum of money and, in default of payment, to be imprisoned. Blackburn J; noted that the substance of the libel was CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 12 of 24 true but the question was whether what was stated inaccurately was the gist of the libel.
39. (ii)Fair Comment-The comment must be an expression of opinion rather than assertion of fact.
40. The comment must be fair i.e. without malice. The matter commented upon must be of public interest.
41. (iii)Privilege:There are certain occasions when the law recognizes the right to freedom of speech outweighs the plaintiffs right to reputation, the law treats those occasions as a privileged communication. These are further of two types:-
Absolute privilege- No action lies for the defamatory statement even though the statement is false or made maliciously. It applies to Parliamentary Privilege, Judicial proceeding and State communication.
Qualified privilege- It is necessary that the statement must have been without malice. The defendant has to prove that statement was made on a privileged occasion fairly. The Court must take the following things into consideration while deciding the question of compensation in a defamatory publication: the conduct of the plaintiff, his position and standing in society, the nature of libel, the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology of libel and The whole conduct of the defendant from the date of publication of libel to the date of the decree.
CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 13 of 24
42. In Gorantla Venkateshwarlu v. B. Demudu, AIR 2003 AP 251, the respondent was a bank officer and was sent on deputation to work as the Managing Director of Co-operative society. The appellant, the President of Society sent a complaint to the Bank alleging that the respondent had illicit connections with ladies which affected the image of the society during his tenure as the Managing Director. The respondent sent a reply denying the allegations made against him. The branch manager of the bank conducted an inquiry and found out that the allegations were false and were made only with a view to see that the respondent is not deputed to inspect the affairs of the society. The respondent filed a suit of defamation claiming damages of Rs. 20,000. The court held that the allegations were per se defamatory and the appellant was liable to pay damages.
43. The law on defamation serves the purpose of protecting people from having their reputation injured resulting from false statements made against them. However, it is still in accordance with the right to freedom of speech and expression, as people can make true statements and give their opinions. This area of law seeks to protect a person's reputation from being hurt by preventing unfair speech. The Hon'ble Apex Court has stated in various cases that the ambit of freedom of speech and expression is "sacrosanct" but is not "absolute". It also said that the right to life CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 14 of 24 under Art. 21 includes the right to reputation of a person and it cannot be violated at the cost of the freedom of speech of another.
44. My issuewise findings are as under.
Issue No.3: Whether the suit is without any cause of action?OPD
45. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The meaning of expression "cause of action" has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union vs Union of India 2001 (2) SCC 294: AIR 2001 SC 416' in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the expression cause of action in its restricted sense was used to refer to the circumstances forming infraction of the right of a party or the immediate occasion for the action. Further, the term cause of action, in its wider sense, has been used to describe every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment in its favour from a court of law. Relevant extract of observation made in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union VS Union of India (Supra) are reproduced below:
"The expression cause of action has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 15 of 24 with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in cause of action".
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'M/s South East Asia Shipping Ltd. Vs M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. 1996 (3) SCC 443' held that the cause of action consists of a bundle of fact which give cause to enforce the legal right for redressal an injury in a court of law and it includes every fact, which would be required to be proved by the plaintiff in order to support her right to a judgment from the Court. Relevant extracts of observations made in the case of M/s South East Asia Shipping Ltd. Vs M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) are reproduced below:
"It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in a court of law. The cause of action means, therefore, every fact, which if transferred, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 16 of 24 cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise."
47. In the light of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited cases of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union v/s Union of India (Supra) and M/s South East Asia Shipping Ltd. v/s M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), this Court is of the considered view that it can safely be said that a cause of action is a bundle of facts on the basis of which a right accrues in favour of one party to sue another party, and to claim the relief in respect of the infringement of his rights by another party from a Court of law. Furthermore, the cause of action refers to a set of facts which are required by the respective parties to be proved for obtaining a favourable judgment from a court of law.
48. Now coming to the present case, the plaintiff has duly disclosed the circumstances under which the defendant made statement, which prima facie appears to be statement that were not made in good taste. The plaintiff had derived his right to sue the defendant by elaborately explaining in the plaint the manner in which plaintiff had been allegedly defamed by the defendant through impugned letter dated 06.08.2015. Plaintiff served legal notice to defendants Ex.PW1/2. Even the defendants have admitted the contents of the letter Ex.PW1/1.
CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 17 of 24
49. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff having cause of action as elaborated by him in detailed in his plaint.
50. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.4:Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties?OPD
51. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants in written statement had taken the plea that suit is liable to be dismissed for want of necessary parties as legal notice dated 14.12.2015 vide para no.3 and 4 claimed damages of reputation of Federation, whereas the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in his individual/personal capacity and therefore the suit of the plaintiff is nothing but sham and no notice of such personal defamation was served to the defendant a defamation is only a private wrong. Defendants have also taken the plea that Corporation has also not been made party to the present suit. However, defendant did not lead any evidence to prove the issue or cross examine witnesses of plaintiff in this regard.
52. In view of above, issue no.4 is decided adverse to the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Issues No.1:Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the defendants for making defamatory, false, CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 18 of 24 intimidating statements against the plaintiff?OPP Issue No.2:If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate?OPP
53. Both these issues are interconnected based on same evidence and hence can be conveniently disposed of together.
54. It is contended by the plaintiff that he is a prominent office bearer and leader of the Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Unions (Regd.) and has a very high class image and name in thousands of employees and that the defendants vide their letter No.CWC/RO-CH/ESTT/ UM/Vol.-N/2015-16/4322 dated 06.08.2015 criminally intimidated and defamed the plaintiff by mischievously and falsely alleging that the plaintiff was working for his personal gains and misusing his position as Secretary General of the Federation of employees unions. It is further stated that defendants also made further defamatory statement against the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff was responsible for alleged misappropriation of 9600 bags and 7344 bags of rice stocks at Moga I and Moga II offices of the Central Warehousing Corporation. It is further averred in the plaint that the defamatory and intimidating statements made by the defendants against the plaintiff are "You are hereby informed to be careful while referring the issue to the Senior Officer and not to use undue influence of your position and pressure for personal gain. You are further CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 19 of 24 advised to own the responsibility of the misappropriation of the rice stocks of 9600 and 7344 bags at CW Moga I and Moga II being head of the Federation in the interest of the organization."
55. It is also that defamatory, mischievous and intimidating letter of the defendants was circulated in the office of the Central Warehousing Corporation and the Labour Commissioner's office in the Ministry of Labour, Govt of India, New Delhi also by way of endorsements made on the same.
56. Plaintiff has stated that the above statements/averments made by the defendants are patently defamatory and false. That the said statement has tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff and damaged his social standing and goodwill in society. It is also stated that these malicious, vexatious, false and incorrect statements were made with a sole motive to malign the fine social and personal standing and image of the plaintiff in his social and personal circles and to cause him to suffer material and personal/mental injury.
57. On the contrary, it is contended by defendant no.1 that letter Ex.PW1/1 does not make any allegations of the alleged misappropriation as false statement against the plaintiff, rather the same is in nature of advisory and the said statement is not a false statement which has caused injury or damage to the reputation of the plaintiff. It is further contended that from the bare reading of CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 20 of 24 the letter Ex.PW1/1 it is crystal clear that there are no derogatory words used by the defendant nor it is amounted to defamatory statement.
58. It is also stated by the defendants that in the present case the plaintiff has already resorted to criminal defamation against the defendants by filing a complaint case under section 156 (3) of the CrPC before Ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts being CC No.472406/2016 which was dismissed vide an order dated 03.11.2016, and the plaintiff had challenged the same vide CA No.12/2018, and that vide order dated 14.05.2018, the Court of Ld. ASJ, South, Saket Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merits.
59. It is further contended by defendant no.1 that letter Ex.PW1/1 was addressed solely to the plaintiff only and not to any other third party and the alleged communication to the senior officers was made in exercise of the power and duty of the defendant no.1 as the Regional Manager of Chandigarh Region of the Central Warehousing Corporation as per law and the rule book of the Corporation and ipso facto the defendant no.1 was not intended of any malice, ill will, contempt or defamatory towards the plaintiff in particular.
60. The entire case of the plaintiff is based on the alleged defamatory contents of letter Ex.PW1/A. CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 21 of 24
61. I have gone through the contents of the alleged letter Ex.PW1/1. Having reading of the letter Ex.PW1/1, this Court is of the considered opinion that apparently there are no allegations against the plaintiff of theft and instead it appears that defendants, in discharge of their official duty had issued advisory to plaintiff being head/Secretary General of the Federation in the interest of the organization.
62. Further, plaintiff in support of his version has examined PW2 and PW4 who deposed in their evidence affidavit that they were shown letter Ex.PW1/1. Interestingly the plaintiff in his entire plaint or replication has not uttered about PW2 and PW4 nor the facts they deposed in their evidence affidavit regarding their coming across letter Ex.PW1/1, as such it appears that they are planted witnesses. Further, having gone through their testimony and their relations with the plaintiff, this Court is of the considered opinion that they are interested witnesses, planted at a later stage and their testimony does not inspire confidence.
63. It is also to be noted that PW4 deposed in his evidence affidavit that he was assigned investigation regarding misappropriation of the rice bags in the Corporation. As such, PW4 has supported the case of the defendant that there was misappropriation of the rice bags regarding which defendants have mentioned in their letter Ex.PW1/1.
CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 22 of 24
64. DW1 during his cross examination has specifically answered to the questions put by plaintiff that in November 2013 and November 2014 there was misappropriation of rice bags at Central Warehouse at Moga I and Moga II and FIR was lodged in this regard. As such apparently there were thefts of rice bags in Corporation, and the defendants were duty bound to take necessary steps in this regard by issuing advisory to employees.
65. Plaintiff has examined PW3, Labour Enforcement Officer who had brought letter Ex.PW1/1. She deposed that matter was referred to Ministry of Labour and Employment where from sanction for filing of prosecution complaint against the erring employers had been received. However, plaintiff has failed to explain how testimony of this witness is relevant to the case of the plaintiff, as defendants have already admitted that they had sent copy of letter Ex.PW1/1 to Regional Labour Commissioner, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as well as to the Director (Pers.), CWC, New Delhi for information.
66. Furthermore, in a suit for damages for defamation, it is a settled law that the plaintiff has to prove that he was defamed by the defamatory words or that the imputation was directed against him and, for proving the allegations of alleged loss caused due to defamation, neither any detail nor document has been filed by the plaintiff.
CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 23 of 24
67. From the perusal of material available on record and the testimony of the witnesses, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that his reputation was damaged, diminished or adversely effected in any manner by letter Ex.PW1/1 of the defendants, and he is entitled to compensation/damages as prayed for.
68. Issues No.1 and 2 are accordingly decided adverse to the plaintiff.
Relief.
69. In view of above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, as per law. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 23.08.2024 (Sunil Beniwal) District Judge-06(South), Saket Courts, New Delhi/23.08.2024 CS DJ No.8695/2016 page 24 of 24