Mr. Raghava D vs Karnataka State Licensed ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4105 Kant

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

            R.S.A. NO.1986 OF 2021 (MON)

BETWEEN:

MR. RAGHAVA D.
S/O LATE DEVU M.
AGED 56 YEARS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (IN CHARGE)
MESCOM, SURATHKAL BRANCH,
RESIDING AT CHURCH ROAD,
SURATHKAL,
MANGALORE TALUK-575011.
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VENKATESH
SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.P.HEGDE AND ASSTS.)

AND:

1.     KARNATAKA STATE LICENSED ELECTRICAL
       CONTRACTORS' SANGHA (R)
       SURATHKAL SUB COMMITTEE OF D.K.,
       DISTRICT UNIT, H.K. COMPLEX
       BAJPE ROAD, SURATHKAL,
       MANGALORE-575011
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
       MR. KUSHALA POOJARY.

2.     MR. KUSHALA POOJARY
       ADULT
       FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
       PRESIDENT
       KARNATAKA STATE LICENSED ELECTRICAL
                          2




     CONTRACTORS' SANGHA (R)
     SURATHKAL SUB COMMITTEE OF D.K.,
     DISTRICT UNIT, H.K. COMPLEX
     BAJPE ROAD, SURATHKAL,
     MANGALORE-575011

3.   SHAILESH
     ADULT
     FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
     VICE PRESIDENT
     KARNATAKA STATE LICENSED ELECTRICAL
     CONTRACTORS' SANGHA (R)
     SURATHKAL SUB-COMMITTEE OF D.K.,
     DISTRICT UNIT, H.K. COMPLEX
     BAJPE ROAD, SURATHKAL,
     MANGALORE-575011

4.   RONALD PERIERA
     ADULT
     FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
     SECRETARY
     KARNATAKA STATE LICENSED ELECTRICAL
     CONTRACTORS' SANGHA (R)
     SURATHKAL SUB COMMITTEE OF D.K.,
     DISTRICT UNIT, H.K. COMPLEX
     BAJPE ROAD, SURATHKAL,
     MANGALORE-575011

5.   ABDUL KHADER
     ADULT
     FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
     TREASURER
     KARNATAKA STATE LICENSED ELECTRICAL
     CONTRACTOR SANGHA (R)
     SURATHKAL SUB COMMITTEE OF D.K.,
     DISTRICT UNIT, H.K. COMPLEX
     BAJPE ROAD, SURATHKAL,
     MANGALORE-575011

6.   CHARAN KUMAR
     ADULT
     FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
     JOINT SECRETARY
                            3




     KARNATAKA STATE LICENSED ELECTRICAL
     CONTRACTOR SANGHA (R)
     SURATHKAL SUB COMMITTEE OF D.K.,
     DISTRICT UNIT, H.K. COMPLEX
     BAJPE ROAD, SURATHKAL,
     MANGALORE-575011

7.   SUKUMAR
     ADULT
     FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
     ORGANIZING SECRETARY
     KARNATAKA STATE LICENSED ELECTRICAL
     CONTRACTOR SANGHA (R)
     SURATHKAL SUB COMMITTEE OF D.K.,
     DISTRICT UNIT, H.K. COMPLEX
     BAJPE ROAD, SURATHKAL,
     MANGALORE-575011
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED IN RA No.48/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., AT
MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.01.2019 PASSED IN OS
No.115/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., MANGALURU D.K.

     THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff,

challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the

Courts, whereby his suit for recovery of damages for

alleged defamation was rejected.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff, an employee of the Mangaluru

Electricity Supply Company, filed a suit for defamation and

for recovery of damages of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from

the defendants, on account of a complaint lodged by the

defendants accusing the plaintiff of certain irregularities in

his functioning as an Assistant Executive Engineer at the

Operation and Maintenance Section.

4. The defendants contested the suit and claimed

that a complaint lodged by one of its members on

16.11.2013 was escalated before the superiors of the

plaintiff.

5. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial

Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, defendants violated all limits of decency and morality and have published and circulated defamatory matters against plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, because of the defamatory publication made by the defendants the image of the plaintiff is tarnished?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled for the damage of Rs.1,00,000/- as averred in the plaint?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of compensation as sought for in the plaint?

5. What order or decree?

6. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he

marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-5, while an office

bearer of the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and

the complainant who had lodged the complaint on

16.11.2013 was examined as D.W.2 and marked

documents as Exs.D1 to D4.

7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the

defendant No.1 had merely lodged a complaint with the

official superior of the plaintiff and that there was no

publication of the complaint so as to besmirch the image

of the complaint. It was also held that until the superiors

conducted an enquiry, the complaint dated 16.11.2013

lodged by D.W.2 cannot be termed to be false.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiff

filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First

Appellate Court considered the contentions urged and held

that lodging a complaint by the defendants before the

Official Superior of the plaintiff would not amount to

publication and hence, cannot be defamatory. It further

held that the complaint lodged by the defendant was based

on complaint lodged by D.W.2 which cannot be termed to

be defamatory, but it is for the official superior who had

called for an explanation from the plaintiff to decide it. It

also held that though the truth is a defence in an action for

defamation, but in the present case, the truth was yet to

be unravelled by the official superiors of the plaintiff. Even

otherwise, the First Appellate Court held that there was no

evidence to establish that the image of the plaintiff was

tarnished by such a complaint and hence dismissed the

appeal.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and

decree, the present appeal is filed.

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 was bound to

conduct an inhouse verification about veracity of the

statements made in the complaint lodged by D.W.2 and

must have thereafter lodged a complaint. He submitted

that the evidence of D.W.1 disclosed that the plaintiff was

performing his duties efficiently and in accordance with law

and as a result of the complaint the plaintiff was exposed

to an unwanted departmental enquiry. He, further,

submitted that publication of a defamatory article is not a

sine qua non for an action in tort. He submitted that once

the plaintiff had brought an action before the Court it was

for the defendants to establish that the statements made

by them were after ascertaining the truth. He, therefore,

submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed

by both the Courts deserves to be set aside.

11. I have considered the submissions made by

learned Senior Counsel.

12. When a person in good faith publishes any

information about a public servant performing his public

duties, he cannot be tried for an action for defamation. In

the case on hand, the defendant No.1 placed on record the

fact that the complaint at Ex.P-5 was lodged based on a

complaint received by it from D.W.2. If that be so, the

defendant No.1 cannot be accused of publishing any

defamatory statement impinging the conduct of the

plaintiff. Even otherwise, the complaint at Ex.P-5 was not

published to the world at large, but was marked to the

official superior of the plaintiff, who has now called for an

explanation from the plaintiff. This, at any rate, cannot be

termed to be defamation as it falls clearly within Exception

- 2 provided under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

13. Even otherwise, the learned Senior Counsel

could not point out to any evidence to establish that the

plaintiff had suffered any loss of reputation, on account of

the complaint lodged by defendant No.1.

14. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court and

the First Appellate Court were justified in dismissing the

suit filed by the plaintiff. There is no merit in this appeal

and same is dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm