JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff, Smt. Harsh Mendiratta, has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 10 lacs on account of damages and compensation for defamation of her husband by the defendants and thereby causing her mental torture, pain and agony.
2. Briefly narrated the averments made in the plaint are that plaintiff’s husband Sh. Arjun Lal Mendiratta was a permanent staff member of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and was holding a permanent status with FAO/UN. It is alleged that by a telex message received from the Director of Personal, FAO, Rome. Arjun Lal Mendiratta was directed to report to defendant No. 1 Dr. Maharaj Singh to work as Assistant to Project Director. Accordingly, Arjun Lal Mendiratta reported for duty to the defendant No.1 on 5th December, 1986. Arjun Lal Mendiratta expected that he would be given duties which were being performed by V. Kumar, as Administrative Officer of the project at that time. Defendant No. 1 was not at all prepared to give charge of the duties performed by V. Kumar to Arjun Lal Mendiratta. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 did not give any record, files, keys, vehicles, duties/job, equipment, petty cash, etc. to enable Arjun Lal Mendiratta to perform his duties properly. Rather Arjun Lal Mendiratta was asked to shift project office from Krishi Bhavan building to Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan, Pusa, New Delhi without even providing him proper staff, facilities, amenities, cash vehicle etc. Arjun Lal Mendiratta, however, managed to transfer the project office to Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan, Pusa by 20th December, 1986, despite complete non-cooperation from the Project Director. Instead of providing the aforesaid amenities and facilities to Arjun Lal Mendiratta, defendant No.1 surrendered the project vehicles to FAO on 1st January, 1987. Defendant No. 1 is alleged to have arranged taking over of the project unit equipment by Ashok Malhotra who was merely a typist in the project who stood relieved from the strength of the FAO with effect from 1st Janary, 1987 in terms of the decision taken by the Government of India to the effect that no FAO personnel will be retained in the project beyond 1st January, 1987. Sh. Ashok Malhotra had already been offered the substitute post of Assistant in I.C.A.R. and he had accepted that offer on 1st January, 1987 itself. It is alleged that despite that the defendant No.1 did not relive Ashok Malhotra. Then on 3rd January, 1987 defendant No.1 left India for three weeks to USA without leaving any instructions to Arjun Lal Mendiratta whereupon Arjun Lal Mendiratta vide his letter dated 19th January, 1987 informed various authorities that he had not been assigned supporting staff, equipment, records, funds, project vehicles, etc to enable him to perform his duties and responsibilities as Assistant to Project Director. It is further alleged that in all the correspondence with the Union of India defendant No. 1 has been showing the name of Mr. V. Kumar, as Administrative Officer of the Project with out even mentioning the name of Arjun Lal Mendiratta. The name of Arjun Lal Mendiratta was not published even in the staff list nor even a entry gate pass was got issue for Arjun Lal Mendiratta. It is further alleged that in the month of March, 1987 the Chief of the Agricultural Operations Branch of FAO, Rome Along with his assistant visited defendant No. 1 several times. Defendant No. 1 kept the said visits and meetings secret from Arjun Lal Mendiratta so that he may not be able to inform the Chief of the Agricultural Operations about the irregularities and malpractices which were being committed by defendant No. 1 Rather defendant No. 1 misued his position by furnishing false information against Arjun Lal Mendiratta with ulterior motive to cause loss, mental torture, agony to him and his family members and to defame him in the eyes of the public and colleague. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 expressed the view that he had no choice but to accept Mr. Mendiratta with greatest reluctance and this statement reflects on the competence of Arjun Lal Mendiratta and is defamatory to him. On the other hand defendant No. 1 has been committing various irregularities to get personal benefits/advantages through Dr. E. Bojad Zievski. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 refused to allow Arjun Lal Mendiratta to obtain necessary clearance for the machinery, equipment worth millions of dollars which has been imported in India. Besides defendant No. 1 had removed some equipment and machinery to his own use for personal gains and benefits. Defendant No. 1 allegedly spent huge amount from the foreign exchange component of the project on the supply of uniforms to the drivers without getting the statement/certificate verified by Arjun Lal Mendiratta. It is alleged that Maharaj Singh, defendant No. 1 was so annoyed with Arjun Lal mendiratta that he got the increment of Arjun Lal Mendiratta stopped. Plaintiff allegedly made a personal visit tot he defendant No. 1 to request him to allow her husband to per form his duties according to, his status. But instead of rendering any help, defendant No. 1 made a false allegation that the plaintiff had approached him with a request that he should not accept Arjun Lal Mendiratta.
3. It is further pleaded that appeal committee of FAO on 6th May, 1986 had appreciated the service of Arjun Lal Mendiratta in the following words:-
“The committee unanimously recognized Mr. Mendiratta’s positive service record, his dedication to his work and the fact that his work, competence and capability had never been put in doubt.”
4. Despite this appreciation of Arjun Lal Mendiratta’s work by the appeal committee of FAO, defendant No. 1 kept on harassing and defaming him as a result of which Arjun Lal Mendiratta and his family members were completely isolated from their colleagues, neighbours, friends etc. Ultimately Arjun Lal Mendiratta who was expecting promotion was dismissed from service on the basis of totally false and baseless allegations. This has cause great set-back, mental agony, pain and torture to the plaintiff and her family and has cause huge financial loss. According to the plaintiff the amount of damages/compensation on various grounds namely monetary loss, mental torture defamation comes to around Rs. 90/- lacs but she has confined her claim to Rs. 10/- lacs.
5. The defendants have contested the suit. They have taken the stand that plaintiff’s husband was an employee of FAO which is immune from the legal proceedings by virtue of Article 7 of the exchange of Letters 1977 constituting an agreement between the Government of India and FAO read with Article 3 section 4 of Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the specialised agencies 1947. It is alleged that the plaintiff has unnecessarily robbed in the defendants in this controversy as Mendiratta was transferred by FAO in November 1985 to the Project Unit to the FAO office at Delhi in lieu of Mr. V. Kumar. According to the defendants, Mendiratta was transferred because of his unsatisfactory working relationship in the office of FAO Delhi and the intention of FAO was to provide him an opportunity to prove himself in a new working environment. However, Mendiratta did not accept the transfer and resorted to various tactics to avoid it. But he ultimately joined on 5th December, 1986. It is denied that defendant No. 1 prevented Mendiratta from performing his duties. The duties and terms of reference were to be assigned by FAO and not by defendant No. 1 In fact the defendant No. 1 sent a telex to Rome, the Headquarter of FAO for expenditing the terms of reference to Mendiratta. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 1 did not personally hold charge of any record, equipment, vehicles, petty cash, implements etc. as all these items in the project Unit belonged to UNDP/FAO. It was for Mendiratta to interact with FAO and have the formality completed. It is further pleaded that the decision to transfer all the three project vehicles to the office of the FAO representative at Delhi, was taken jointly by UNDP and FAO in a meeting held on 24th September, 1987 an at that time defendant No. 1 was not even working as NPD, Defendant No. 1 assumed charge as NPD on 14th November, 1986. Thus defendant No. 1 was not a party to the said decision. Regarding the office equipments it is pleaded that the same were used by the members of the project unit, Mr. Malhotra was retained on month to month basis in absence of a suitable substitute. Mr. Malhotra did not join the ICAR because of too low scales offered to him. The allegation that the defendant No. 1 did not arrange entry pass for Mendiratta or did not get his name published in the list of the office staff are denied. It is pleaded that it was for Mendiratta himself to obtain the pass. The publication of the staff list was to be done by UNDP and the defendant No. 1 has no concern with it. The allegation of making any personal unlawful gain by defendant No. 1 and harassment cause to Mendiratta through Dr. E. Bojad Zievski are denied. It is also denied that the defendant No. 1 made any statement that the plaintiff approached him not to accept Mendiratta.
6. The defendant has also taken the objection that since Mendiratta himself has not filed the suit, this suit by the plaintiff is not maintainable as no cause of action had accrued to her to file the suit.
7. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for finding the present suit?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable?
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. Since both the issues are inter connected they are taken up together for discussions and decision.
ISSUES NO.1 & 2
10. From the above recapitulation of pleadings of the parties it become clear that allegations made by the plaintiff fall in two categories (i) allegations of harassment and defamation caused to Mendiratta by various acts of omissions and commission on the part of the defendant No. 1 and (ii) allegations of other omissions and commissions, irregularities committed by the defendant No. 1 for his personal gain not having any direct connection with the defamation or harassment to Mendiratta. Needless to say that the allegations which fall in category (ii) such as the withdrawal of three project vehicles by the FAO and the retention of drivers and payment of salaries and uniform charges to them, making monetary gain through Dr. E. Bojad Zievski, non-obtaining clearance for imported machines do not have any reflection on the work, conduct and reputation of Mendiratta so such alleged acts of omissions/commissions which fall in the second category cannot give rise to a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff to claim damages for defamation or causing mental agony, torture etc. The only allegation which could possibly be made the basis of an action in tort for defamation could be those which were allegedly made or done by the defendant No. 1 with a view to defame or cause any mental harassment, agony, torture to Mendiratta. Other allegations concerning irregularities or illegalities allegedly committed by defendant No. 1 for any personal gain to himself cannot be made the basis of an action for defamation by the plaintiff. While dealing with such a suit the Court is not supposed to conduct a roving/fact-finding inquiry. Therefore, various acts or omissions attributed to defendant No. 1 which fall in second category referred to above cannot be made the basis of action in the suit for defamation.
11. From the labyrinth of repetitive, mangled allegations made in the plaint the only defamatory allegation one can decipher is that defendant No. 1 by his actions and statements had case cloud on the competence of Mendiratta and had also insinuated that the plaintiff had approached him with request not to accept Mendiratta. Any insinuation regarding the competence of Mendiratta allegedly made by defendant No. 1 cannot be made the basis of an action for defamation because admittedly Mendiratta has been dismissed from the services and his appeal to the ILO Tribunal has also failed. Defendants have placed on record the judgment dated 29th January, 1991 of the Administrative Tribunal of ILO which appears at page 36 of the publication of ILO. A perusal of this judgment shows that Mendiratta had been filing complaints against FAO earlier also. In this judgment the detailed history of his employment and his conduct through out has been given. It seems that from 1979 he was employed in the office of the FAO’s representative in India, in New Delhi and on 1st December, 1985 he was posted Assistant to the director of a technical co-operation project in the same city. But he went on sick leave from 25th November, 1985 and did not take up his new duties until 5th December, 1986. He was told to return the keys to a locked cupboard and desk he had been allowed to use in his office. But he failed to do so and ultimately desk drawer had to forcibly opened on 3rd February, 1986. On 5th October 1987 he was placed under suspension pending investigation of the charges of unsatisfactory performance. Then Mendiratta vide memo dated 27th February, 1988 claimed damaged for loss of personal papers and other belongings. Subsequently, vide telegram dated 19th August 1988 he lodged a claim for damages in the amount of 2 million U.S. dollars for “serious mental physical and economic injuries to self and consequent physical mental economic social and educational damages to (his) dependants”. On 29th August he sent telex claiming another $ 150,000 as damages. These claims were rejected. Then on 3rd February, 1989 he lost appeal in the appeals Committee and in its report dated 27th September 1989 the Committee rejected his claim. It is needless to give a detailed account of his non-cooperation and defiant conduct as is reflected from the said judgment. Suffice to say that his claim was dismissed. No other legal proceedings challenging his dismissal from service are stated to be pending in any court of law. In face of all this, it is not possible to sustain the allegation of defamation against the defendants. It is not the plaintiff’s case that the defendants made any allegation in respect of personal character or moral turpitude against Mendiratta. The general remarks made by some authority regarding the competence of a subordinate would not amount to defamation.
12. The only specific allegation contained in para 13 of the plaint is that the defendant No. 1 had made a false statement that plaintiff had approached him with a request that he should not accept Mendiratta. In the same pare plaintiff admits that she did met defendant No. 1 and requested him to allow her husband to function peacefully. So her meeting with the defendant No. 1 is admitted. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 had stated that plaintiff had approached him with the request not to accept Mendiratta. Such a statement, per se, even if made by the defendant No. 1, is not defamatory. It does not reflect adversely on the work, conduct, reputation or character of Mendiratta or the plaintiff. Thus the averments made in the plaint taken individually and collectively do not make out a case of defamation against the defendants.
13. Moreover the settled position of the law appears to be that an action for the defamation is maintainable only by the person who is defamed and not by his friends, relatives & family members. Learned counsel for the defendants have cited the following cases:-
1. Subbaiyar v. Kristnaiyar
2nd Vol.1 Mad 383
2. Daya v. Param Sukh.
2nd Vol. II All 104.
3. Bramanna v. Rama Krishna
2nd 1895 xviii Mad 250
4. Luckumsey Rowji v. Hurbun Nursey and Ors.
2nd (Vol.5) 1881 page 580.
14. In all these cases it was held that an action for defamation can be instituted only by a person who is defamed and not by others viz. family members, relatives and friends etc. If family members, friends were allowed to file suit for damages for defamation it will open flood gates of litigation. In 2nd Vol. I Mad 383 the Court disallowed plaintiff’s claim for damages for defamation of his sister. In 2nd Vol. II All 104, the suit for defamation brought by the father for defamation of his daughter, was dismissed as not maintainable. In 2nd 1895 xviii Mad 250, the suit brought by the husband for defamation of his wife by the defendant, was held to be not maintainable.
15. The present case also falls in the same category. Mr. Mendiratta, husband of the plaintiff has not filed any suit for damages for defamation against defendant No. 1 Plaintiff who is the wife of Mendiratta has chosen to file this suit without joining Mendiratta as a party. The defect cannot be remedied at this stage even by impleading Mendiratta himself as a plaintiff as held in the case of 2nd Vol. 1 Mad 383. No law to the contrary was cited before me by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
16. It must, therefore, be held that plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit which is not maintainable. Both the issues are decided in negative and against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
17. In the result, the suit is dismissed as not maintainable but without any order as to costs.