NARAIN SINGH Vs. HANUMAN PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who has been permitted to sue as an indigent person, has laid present suit for recovery of Rs. 6,20,000.00 as damages, viz. Rs. 5,00,000.00 for defamation, Rs. 1,00,000.00 for harassment and Rs. 20,000.00 for harassment to the family members.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is that he was appointed as driver by the defendants and was given even appreciation letters for his very good driving. His appointment was extended by one year on 1.4.1994. The plaintiff, who hails from the hills, was very hard-working and performed his duties with great devotion. He is having a small family of his parents. Brothers in-laws and belongs to a respectable community. It was to earn his livelihood that he was working as a driver. The defendants informed him that they were dis-continuing his services on which he left Delhi and came to his village after 16.8.1995. When he reached his native place, he was coerced by his wife, parents and other community members including relations about his behaviour/character which was communicated to them by defendant No. 1 vide letter dated Aug. 16, 1995 mentioning therein that the plaintiff is an indisciplined dishonest, doubtful, corrupt and disloyal person to the organisation. Everyone believed the letter and thus. the plaintiff was defamed in the society, with the result, that he had been made to live away from his home village. It is further claimed that earlier, at no point of time nothing adverse was communicated to the plaintiff by the defendants nor any inquiry was conducted against him. The defendants, with the intention of defaming the plaintiff, made totally false statements against him whereby the plaintiff has suffered inasmuch as his reputation has been lowered in the eyes of his wife, parents, brothers and public at large including his relations, neighbourers and friends. His blood pressure had increased and was having sleepless nights Hence this suit.

(3.) This defendants contested the claim. After narrating the purpose for which the organisation, defendant No. 2 has been constitute and its work, achievements and association and the circumstances under which the plaintiff was employed his conduct and behaviour and the circumstances under which FIR had to be lodged against him and his services had to be terminated in the from of preliminary objections 1 to 7 the defendants raised further preliminary objections that the plaint lacks material particulars and is not in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the High Court Rules and order : that the plaintiff has "suggested falsehood" and suppressed material facts, therefore, the suit is not maintainable that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. therefore, he is dis-entitled to the relief claimed : that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit on account of his "deeds" acts and omissions that the suit is not triable by this Court and is time- barred. On merits. while admitting the appointment of the plaintiff as driver and the extension of one year given to him in service, the claim of the plaintiff that he is good driver and a hardworking and devoted persons has been denied. It has been claimed that it was on account of the acts and omissions on the part of the plaintiff that his service were dis- continued and that the letter terminating his services was addressed to him in a confidential cover and if he had shown it to other persons that is entirely his own responsibility. Rest of the claim is made out in the plaint has been denied.