Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
M/s.Doosan Bobcat India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sree Ganesha Rig Service, Rep. by its Proprietor, R.Selvakumar, S/o.Rasappan – Respondents
C.S.No.554 of 2016
Decided on : 13-09-2023
DEFAMATION - REPUTATION DAMAGES - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER IV RULE 1; ORDER VII RULE 1 - The court examined the allegations of defamation made by the defendant against the plaintiff, focusing on the legal standards for defamation and slander of goods. The court highlighted that the plaintiff must prove that the statements made by the defendant were false, malicious, and caused special damages. The court found that the defendant's actions were not malicious but rather a response to grievances regarding the product's performance, which influenced the decision to partly dismiss the claim for damages while granting a permanent injunction against further defamatory statements.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a company manufacturing engineering and agricultural machinery, filed a civil suit against the defendant, a proprietorship concern, seeking damages for defamation due to alleged malicious activities that harmed the plaintiff's reputation. The defendant had purchased a compressor from the plaintiff, which he claimed was defective and led to public demonstrations against the plaintiff's company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's actions, including public demonstrations and complaints, were not malicious but rather a frustrated response to the plaintiff's failure to adequately address the issues with the compressor. The court noted that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that the defendant's statements were false or made with malicious intent.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant made allegations against the plaintiff with malicious intent? 2. Whether the defendant held demonstrations to defame the plaintiff in public? 3. Whether the plaintiff proved damages? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of damages and permanent injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that for a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove that the statements made were false, malicious, and caused special damages. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were a legitimate response to grievances regarding the product, not malicious defamation.
Final Decision: The suit was partly decreed in favor of the plaintiff for a permanent injunction against further defamatory statements, but the claim for damages was dismissed due to lack of evidence of malice or falsehood in the defendant's statements.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
PRAYER: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant :-
(a) to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as damages for loss of their reputation in the eye of public due to frivolous and malicious activities against them;
(b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men or dealers or any other person claiming on their behalf from indulge in malicious and reckless allegations made in the public;
(c) to direct the defendant to pay the cost of the suit.
This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- [Rupees One Crore only] as damages for the loss of their reputation.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant and perused the materials available on record.
The case of the plaintiff in brief:-
3. The plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act represented through its Assistant Manager; the defendant is the proprietorship concern by name 'Sree Ganesha Rig Service' represented through its Proprietor R.Selvakumar; the plaintiff is the manufacturer of engineering and agricultural machineries having its parent company in South Korea and they have started their operation in India in the year 2007; one of the dealers by name 'M/s.Marwell Compressors & Equipments India Pvt. Limited' in Tiruchengode is the defendant who had purchased the compressor from them on 25.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.34,52,036.20 and the said compressor was installed on 05.09.2013; the machine has been operated for nearly 2641.6 hours as on 12.05.2015 and it has been operated at various places in India and the plaintiff's company has been doing services on regular basis.
3.1. Thereafter, it was complained by the defendant that the compressor stopped working but the main issue is lack of maintenance on the part of the defendant; even on 29.04.2015 due to the continuous complaints made by the defendant, the plaintiff was obliged to change the engine itself; however the defendant was not satisfied and he went on filing frivolous complaints and has been provoking the plaintiff in various manner; the defendant had organized demonstrations before the dealer's office of the plaintiff on 02.06.2015 by mobilizing the members of local Tiruchengode Rig Owners Association and abused the plaintiff by putting up banners in public place to defame the plaintiff's company and its activities.
3.2. The intention of the defendant is to tarnish the plaintiff's company in the eyes of general public and these kind of activities are being carried out by the defendant from the month of May 2015; the defendant had also issued public notice in the local daily newspaper by defaming the company; because of this the plaintiff had suffered heavy loss in terms of money and their reputation has also been affected; the plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 16.09.2015 calling upon the defendant to tender an unconditional public apology by giving advertisement in the local newspaper; the defendant received the legal notice and sent reply on 10.10.2015 by making unwanted and wild allegations against the plaintiff in which he also threatened the plaintiff that he would initiate proceedings before the Consumer Forum for deficiency in service and hence, the plaintiff has got no other alternative except to file the suit for damages in view of defamation committed by the defendant. Written submissions filed by the defendant in brief:-
4. The compressor supplied by the plaintiff was a defective one; at the time of purchase, the plaintiff's dealer assured repairing service within the warranty period at free of cost and the compressor service will also be attended by the plaintiff's service engineers once in two months; the compressor should run 5000 hours within the warranty period of two year
AI
In defamation cases, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the statements made by the defendant were false, malicious, and caused special damages, with the court emphasizing the distinction ....
In a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's statements caused actual harm to their reputation.
Defendant's statements were found defamatory, published maliciously, and lacked justification, leading to damages awarded to Plaintiffs.
A claimant in defamation does not need to prove fame to seek damages; jurisdiction was properly assessed under CPC provisions.
In defamation cases, the burden of proof lies on plaintiffs to establish that defamatory statements were made, while defenses of qualified privilege and fair comment cannot prevail if the statements ....
The plaintiff failed to prove defects in goods supplied under the Reseller Agreement, resulting in dismissal of the suit and a decree for the defendant's counter-claim for unpaid invoices.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
