FRANK FINN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Vs. SUBHASH MOTWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff claims Rs 25 lacs as damages for defamation by the libelous article written and published by the defendants in their magazine "opportunities Today" of September, 2001. The said article is under the column "student Alert" and is titled "flights of Fancy Crash Courses or Crashing Hopes. . . . . The article comments on the small/limited number of vacancies for the posts of flight purser, air hostess and cabin crew in the airlines industry and the large number applicants for the same. It proceeds to tell that there are over a dozen institutes offering various training programmes to entice students to pay between Rs 15000/- to Rs 20000/- with the hope of scores of vacancies awaiting them; the students are not told of the heavy odds against employment in the said industry and are enrolled with promises of jobs. After commenting generally on the dozen odd institutes, the impugned article comments in particular on "one of the Delhi based institutes" whose operations are at national level. The impugned article tells that the said institute advertises every two months in leading dailies of all metros in the country that there are over 150 vacancies of air hostesses and flight stewards expected to be filled, the institute claims to have DGCA approved professionals working with them as consultants and conducts a preliminary interview of prospective candidates and anyone applying for the interview has to pay non refundable Rs 750/- and selected candidates have to undergo one week training programme of 18,000 rupees followed by a 100% job assistance and how the said institute is profiteering in this manner.

(2.) IT is significant to state that the article nowhere names any of the institutes nor names the Delhi based institute commented upon in particular. The plaintiff, after the publication of the said article got sent a notice dated 9th October, 2001 (Exhibit P-1) to the defendants claiming defamation and consequent loss to its reputation and claiming Rs 25 lacs as compensation and apology. The defendants vide their advocate"s reply Exhibit P2, inter alia, contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action and claimed to be carrying on a crusade against malpractices in the field of education and denied liability to pay or apologise. The suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, on 29th April, 2004, the following issues were framed: