Back
RAJASTHAN CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Honble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member; Mrs. Saria Khan, Member
SHRI DEVANAND GEHLOT––Appellant
versus
RAJASTHAN PATRIKA LTD. & OTHERS––Respondents
Complaint Case No. 49 of 1989—Decided on 20.12.1989
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant :Shri Bhikam Chand Parakash, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for defamation is barred by the law of limitation if it is filed more than one year after the date of publication of the defamatory statement.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D), 2(1)(O), 12, 14(1)(D), 29 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 75 - DEFAMATION - NEWSPAPER - CONSUMER - SERVICE - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - COMPENSATION - QUANTIFICATION - NEGLIGENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT. The complainant, an advocate, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against a newspaper and its editor and managing editor for publishing a news item that allegedly defamed him. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for mental, social, and financial harassment suffered by him due to the publication of the news item. The court held that the complaint was barred by the law of limitation as it was filed more than one year after the date of publication of the news item. The court also held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had not hired the services of the newspaper for consideration. Further, the court held that the news item was not published with the intention to defame or malign the complainant and that the complainant had failed to substantiate his claim for compensation by sufficient evidence. The court dismissed the complaint and held that there would be no order as to costs.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an advocate, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against a newspaper and its editor and managing editor for publishing a news item that allegedly defamed him. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for mental, social, and financial harassment suffered by him due to the publication of the news item.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint was barred by the law of limitation as it was filed more than one year after the date of publication of the news item. The court also held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had not hired the services of the newspaper for consideration. Further, the court held that the news item was not published with the intention to defame or malign the complainant and that the complainant had failed to substantiate his claim for compensation by sufficient evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was barred by the law of limitation? 2. Whether the complainant was a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 3. Whether the news item was published with the intention to defame or malign the complainant? 4. Whether the complainant had substantiated his claim for compensation by sufficient evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complaint was barred by the law of limitation as it was filed more than one year after the date of publication of the news item, as per Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. The court held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had not hired the services of the newspaper for consideration. 3. The court held that the news item was not published with the intention to defame or malign the complainant. 4. The court held that the complainant had failed to substantiate his claim for compensation by sufficient evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint and held that there would be no order as to costs.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the following order was passed on 20.12.89.
2. “The complaint shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.”
3. It was recorded that reasons in support of the order will be recorded later on.
4. Now, we proceed to set out the reasons.
This complaint purporting to be under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) has been filed by Shri Devanand Gehlot, Advocate on July 24, 1989 against the Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. (opposite party no. 1), Shri Vijay Bhandari (Editor) and Shri Milap Kothari (Managing Editor) for the grant of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation.
5. The complainant has alleged that opposite-party no. 1 is a registered newspaper under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ("the Act of 1867") and can only publish news in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1867. Opposite-parties no. 2 and 3 are its editor and managing editor respectively and so they are responsible for the news published in it. In the Rajasthan Patrika dated 25.7.1987, the news under the head “PRABHA TAAK NE GAHLOT SE ABHADRA VYAVAHAR NAH1N KIYA” was published. The news is of 24.7.89. The material part of the news is alleged to be objectionable.
6. The complainant has alleged that opposite-party, by publishing daily newspaper renders "service" as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(o) of the Act and the complainant avails of those services. Para (C) of the complaint is as under:-
(C) YAH KI APRARTHH RAJASTHAN RAJYA KA EK ATYANT TAKATWAR DAINIK PATRA HAI THATA USKI TAKAT SE SARKARI ADHIKARI BHI KHOF KHATE HAI TATHA USKEI VIRUDH UCHIT KANUNI KARYAWAHI KARNE SE DARTE HAI. DUSRI AUR DURVYAWHAHAR KARNE WALE SARKARI ADHIKARIOA KO APNE AHASAN KE TALE DABANE HATU UNKE PAKSH MAI GHOOTI KHABRE CHAPTE HAI. ISI SANDHARBH MAI APRARTHI NO. 1 NEI E.EX MAI CHAPA HAI TATHA PRARTHI KO BADNAM KIA HAI."
7. It is said by the complainant that attention of the opposite-part for publishing false and baseless news which has brought him to disrepute was drawn vide letters Exs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 but efforts of the complainant were in vain. The complainant has alleged that on account of the "unfair trade policy" adopted by the opposite-party. he has been deprived of his livelihood as ‘AAM ADMI’ does not recognize him as advocate and the complainant has been suffering financial crisis since July 1987. He has prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs maybe awarded as he has suffered mentally, socially and financially on account of the unfair trade practice, false and misleading news published by the oppositeparty.
8. The complaint was resisted by the opposite-parties by filing a detailed version of the case dated 16.10.89. Preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint were raised. The main preliminary objection is that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and that opposite-party has neither sold any "goods" nor it renders any "service" to him. The averments made in the complaint were strongly refuted. It was submitted that the news item in question was published in good faith and there was no motive to defame or malign the complainant. The complainant was informed to send his statement in connection with the news item to the opposite-party. A letter dated 6.10.87 was sent by the complainant to opposite-party No. 2, which contained his statement which he wanted to be published in the newspaper. It was not possible to publish that in the form in which it was sent for no data was made available in support of it. The complainant was told to have conference with the officers of the opposite-parties for preparing matter for publication. The matter was prepared by the opposite-parties for publication. It was shown to the complainant but he was insisting that the statement contained in the letter dated 6.10.87 should be published. It was mentioned that in the statement which was sent by the complainant, nothing was mentioned to show that facts
