Delhi High Court
M/S Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd. vs Shri Rajan Verma & Ors. on 19 December, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
i.10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 19th December, 2008
+ RFA 489/2008
M/S BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.K.Dutta, Advocate and
Mr.Ashish Verma, Advocate.
versus
SHRI RAJAN VERMA & ORS. ... Respondents
Through: Mr.J.S.Bakshi, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
Caveat No.86/2008
Since caveator appears the caveat stands
discharged.
CM No.17964/2008
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
RFA 489/2008
1. Learned counsel for the parties state that a purely
legal issue arises in the appeal and hence the same may be
heard for disposal today itself.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We
note that Rajan Verma, plaintiff of the suit, has filed a caveat
and advance copy of the appeal has been served upon him.
He has appeared through counsel.
3. Rajan Verma filed a suit seeking recovery of
Rs.3,27,000/-(Rupees Three Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Only)
and injunction. Injunction prayed for was to prohibit
„Hindustan Times‟ and the publishers of the newspaper „The
Time of India‟ from publishing advertisements pertaining to the
products of defendant No.1 M/s.Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.
4. Case pleaded in the plaint was that M/s.Nokia India
Pvt. Ltd. was the manufacturer/importer of Nokia phones and
defendant No.2, Asian Electronics, was its dealer. It was
pleaded that defendant No.3, Hindustan Times and defendant
No.4, Bennett Coleman & Co. were publishing daily
newspapers „Hindustan Times‟ and „The Times of India‟. It was
asserted that the plaintiff purchased a Nokia mobile phone
from defendant No.2 on 6.7.2006 after paying Rs.27,200/-. He
alleged that the phone was not giving satisfactory services in
respect whereof repeated complaints were lodged. It was
pleaded that the mobile set was handed over for rectification
and that the plaintiff had to repeatedly run to various officers
of M/s.Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., some of whom spoke very rudely
with him. It was asserted that a defective mobile set was sold
to the plaintiff by defendants No.1 and 2.
5. Qua defendants No.3 and 4 it was pleaded that they
were permitting false and misleading advertisements
regarding products to be published. It was pleaded that the
advertisements are meant to cheat unwary people.
6. Monetary claim was laid against defendants No.1
and 2 in sum of Rs.3,27,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Twenty
Seven Thousand Only). Injunction sought against defendants
No.3 and 4 was, as noted above, to prohibit them from
publishing advertisements relatable to the products of
defendant No.1.
7. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated
15.10.2008 learned Trial Judge has returned findings of
harassment caused by defendant No.1 and 2. A decree has
been passed against said defendants in sum of Rs.1,27,200/-
(Rupees One Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Only).
8. Qua the appellant, learned Trial Judge has held
that the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction as prayed for.
However, the learned Trial Judge has issued a direction as
under:-
"Hence I feel that the plaintiff is not entitled to the
injunction as claimed however I feel this is the duty
of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 to issue the caution
along with the advertisement stating that features
or qualities is not guaranteed by the newspaper.
With this direction, issue stands disposed."
9. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellant that as pleaded in the written statement, though not
obliged under any law, by way of precaution, the appellant
cautions all readers of the newspaper who read the
advertisements published therein as under:-
"Readers are advised to make appropriate
enquiries and seek appropriate advice before
sending money, incurring any expenses, acting on
medical recommendations or entering into any
published in this publication. The Times of India
Group doesn‟t vouch for any claims made by the
Advertisers of products and services. The Printer,
Publisher, Editor and Owners or the Times of India
Group publications shall not be held liable for any
consequences, in the event such claims are not
honoured by the Advertisers.
10. Learned counsel points out that the learned Trial
Judge has ignored the said pleading, made good by production
of the newspaper.
11. With respect to the claim in the plaint, suffice
would it be to state that it was not the case of Rajan Verma
that he chose to purchase a Nokia handset after he saw and
read an advertisement relating to the said product as
published in „The Times of India‟.
12. We thus fail to understand as to how he could
implead defendants No.3 and 4 as parties in the suit.
13. Be that as it may, no rule of law, either statutory or
under common law has been cited, much less referred to, by
the learned Trial Judge.
14. In fact a perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial
Judge shows self-contradictory findings. Immediately
preceding the suo motu directions issued by the learned Trial
Judge, discussing issue No.1: whether the plaintiff was entitled
to the injunction as claimed; findings returned is as under:-
"Defendants No.3 and 4 are newspapers who have
to carry the advertisement as per the specifications
given by the clients and advertisement is owned by
the advertiser and the newspaper shall have no
responsibility if someone is adduced by the
advertisement and misled."
15. Under the circumstances, noting that the appellant
is already publishing an advice as afore-noted, we allow the
appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree
dated 15.10.2008 insofar it has directed the appellant to issue
a caution along with each advertisement stating that features
or qualities are not guaranteed by the newspaper.
16. We refrain from imposing any costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2008
Dharmender
