DEVANAND GEHLOT Vs. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of 19.2.1990 of the State Commission of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 had published a news item in the Rajasthan Patrika which the Appellant has assailed as wrong news: the news was that though the Appellant Mr. Gahlot was a member of the Bar he was no longer practicing and was running a Travel Co., and also a Photo Copier service. The Appellant has alleged that as a result of the false news he suffered loss of his profession, mental tension, physical in -comforts and socially ill image. He has therefore charged the Respondent with negligence and claimed a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the damage or injury caused to him.

(3.) IN his appeal as well as during the course of oral arguments before this Commission, the Counsel for the appellant has also attacked the impartiality of the State Commission: according to the appellant there was unjustified delay on the part of the State Commission in making the Order on his petition: the Order was said to have been pronounced on the 20th of December, 1989 but was actually delivered much later, that the State Commission was not competent under the Consumer Protection Act to pronounce only the operative part of its Order on 20th December, 1989 and record the reasons in support of that Order 61 days later, on 19th of February, 1990, that the point of limitation about the maintainability of the complaint was raised by the Commission suo moto, the parties had not raised it with the result that there was no discussion on the question of limitation and the appellant therefore had no opportunity to plead before the Commission that his complaint was within time. Nonetheless, the State Commission has rejected the complaint of the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation treating the news item as libelous or defamatory