Delhi District Court
Kanwaljit Singh Nanda vs Bases Rajdhani Power Ltd on 20 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE -02, WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Civ DJ No. 258/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-002736-2019
DLWT010027362019
Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Nanda
S/o late Sh. G.S. Nanda
R/o K-8, Fateh Nagar, Near Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
...Plaintiff
Versus
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
A company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
Delhi-110019 and Corporate, Legal and Enforcement Cell at
Andrews Ganj, next to Andrews Ganj Market, New Delhi-110049.
Also At:
BSES Corporate and Legal Enforcement Cell,
66 KV Grid Station, OPP. DDU Hospital,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064
through its Authorised officer/person.
. . . Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 08.04.2019
Date on which reserved for judgment : 21.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 20.08.2025.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 1/40
Suit for recovery of Rs. 15,10,000/- as damages and
compensation for defamation.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide, the present suit for
recovery of Rs. 15,10,000/- as damages and compensation for
defamation.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS PER HIS PLAINT
2. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is a peace
loving and law abiding citizen of India. It is further averred that
defendant company had filed a complaint against the spouse/wife
of the plaintiff u/s 135 read with section 138 of electricity Act,
2003, on the basis of false and fabricated documents on
10.04.2013.
3. It is further averred in the plaint that the wife of the
plaintiff expired on 03.11.2017 and the complaint of the
complainant had been abated due to death of the wife of the
plaintiff.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had
filed the complaint against the wife of plaintiff in the court by
alleging that the defendant company had inspected the electricity
connection of the house of the wife of the plaintiff on 05.12.2012
and the authorized Enforcement team of defendant company found
that two numbers copper shunt have been connected between
phase to phase and neutral to neutral terminal of the meter bearing
no. 23165155 installed at site. But inspection could not be
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 2/40
completed as the premises was found lock and thereafter notice u/s
163 was sent and the premises was again inspected on 06.12.2012
by a joint inspection team of the defendant company.
5. It is further averred that in the complaint filed by the
defendant, it is mentioned that the inspection was again carried out
and the load of 8.210 KW for domestic use was found connected
against the sanctioned load of 5.00 KW under Domestic Category.
It is further averred in the plaint that it is mentioned in the above
said complaint that during the inspection, illegal holes were found
at the backside of the meter terminal and the meter was removed
and seized at site vide seizure memo dated 06.12.2012 and sealed
in a bag and supply to the premises was restored through new
meter.
6. It is further averred that as per the complaint of the
defendant the Meter no. 23165155 was sent to NABL accredited
meter testing laboratory for further testing/analyses of the meter
and necessary videography/photography was done by the team
members with the help of digital Camera at site. It is further
averred that in the complaint, it is mentioned that the laboratory
declared that the meter is tampered.
7. It is further averred in the plaint that the true facts are that
on 03.12.2012, some persons came to the house of the plaintiff and
claimed themselves as employee of defendant’s company. It is
further averred that they asked for the electricity Bill and the
family members of the plaintiff had handed over the same to them.
It is further averred that they told that the meter has been burnt.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 3/40
8. It is further averred by the plaintiff that his family
members narrated the above said fact burning of meter to the
plaintiff and the plaintiff came to his house, where one person met
him and told his name as Sunil, employee of BSES. It is further
averred that Mr. Sunil told him that the meter has been burnt and he
demanded Rs. 35,000/- from the plaintiff. He told that otherwise
the plaintiff will have to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-.
9. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff asked Mr.
Sunil as to why he had opened the meter in the absence of his
family members, but he did not reply. It is further averred in the
plaint that after a while, other BSES employee came there and
stated to the plaintiff that when the plaintiff was up stairs, Mr.
Shama came there and he took the photo of the meter from his
mobile and he stated that plaintiff would have to pay at least Rs.
50,000/- as the share of the amount is also divided to him.
10. It is further averred in the plaint that Mr. Sunil and other
BSES Employee installed the same meter again without seal it. It is
further averred that in the evening one person came from the
defendant’s office and stated to the plaintiff that “you lives in Fateh
Nagar, are you aware about Kapil Ji”, and the plaintiff replied no.
He told that Kapil Ji is supervisor and his phone number is
9953459891.
11. It is further averred in the plaint that on the next day i.e.
on 4.12.2012, the plaintiff went to Electricity Office and made the
payment of electricity Bill and thereafter, the plaintiff made a
complaint in Mayapuri, Electricity office regarding burning of
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 4/40
meter vide complaint no. 359. It is further averred that on
6.12.2012, the plaintiff went to DGM, Hari Nagar, where the
official of Hari Nagar told to the plaintiff to meet with Sh. T.R.
Bhatia at BSES office opposite to DDU, hospital and plaintiff
narrated all the story to the official in that office and thereafter his
meter was changed by BSES.
12. It is further averred that plaintiff made a complaint to the
Chief Vigilance Officer BSES Sub. Station Building, Ist Block,
CR Park, Opposite Kalibari Mandir, New Delhi and also sent the
copy to General Manager BSES and Manger Head of the
Enforcement Department but no action was initiated against the
aforesaid persons.
13. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff made a
complaint in Hari Nagar, Police Station, Delhi against the said
illegal acts vide DD No. 26B, dated 16.01.2014 and also made a
complaint to ACP, Tilak Nagar and DCP, Rajouri Garden, Delhi
but no action has been taken against the said persons. It is further
averred that plaintiff had also filed a complaint before consumer
Forum. It is further averred that after filing the complaint before
consumer forum, the defendant had filed the complaint against the
wife of the plaintiff U/s 135 R/w 138 of Electricity Act.
14. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had
filed a vague complaint against the plaintiff on the basis of false
and vague documents. It is further averred in the plaint that the
notice U/s 163 of Electricity Act has been sent to the premises at
A-8, Fateh Nagar not at K-8, Fateh Nagar. It is further averred in
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 5/40
the plaint that the defendant’s company had prepared a false notice
on 10.09.2012 and thereafter they had made a cutting on the notice
and write the date as 05.12.2012. It is further averred in the plaint
that defendant had added in the notice as “two no. illegal copper
shunt connected between phase to phase and neutral terminal of
the meter” but in the original notice there is no such remarks.
15. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had
placed the photographs of 18.01.2007 but they claimed that the
plaintiff has committed a crime of theft of electricity in the year,
2012. It is further averred in the plaint that the officials of the
defendant have also created scene and called the plaintiff and his
wife as thief in the presence of the respected members of the
society. It is further averred that the plaintiff had deposited Rs.
10,000/- to the BSES office and then the official of the defendant’s
company had reconnected the electricity of the plaintiff.
16. It is further averred in the plaint that the official of the
defendant company had tried to tarnish the image of the plaintiff
and his wife by calling them as “thief. It is further averred in the
plaint that the defendant had branded the plaintiff and his wife as
“thief” though they were never involved in the aforesaid act in any
manner whatsoever.
17. It is further averred in the plaint that officials of the
defendant had filed a false complaint and created a wrongful
remark in the minds of the neighbours and respectable members of
the society against the plaintiff and his wife, and due to the acts of
the defendant, the plaintiff has lost his earned reputation and
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 6/40
goodwill. It is further averred that the acts and designs of the
officials of the defendant are grossly defamatory to the reputation
of the plaintiff and his wife and more than their embarrassment.
18. It is further averred that remark of officials of the
defendant as thief attributed to the plaintiff and his wife are of such
a egregious nature that no respectable person would chanced upon
such a remark would consider the plaintiff and his wife a
respectable person thereafter. It is further averred that officials of
the defendant company have committed the act of defamation of
the plaintiff, knowingly that their acts and imputation would harm
the reputation of the plaintiff.
19. It is further averred that all the imputation and acts of the
defendant comes under the category of defamation and due to that
act of the defendant, wrongful loss has been caused to the
goodwill, reputation and image of the plaintiff. It is further averred
that due to the act of defamation, the plaintiff and his wife have got
mental shock, agony and harassment and the wife of the plaintiff
went into depression and her health became nastiest and finally she
passed away on 03.11.2017.
20. It is further averred in the plaint that defendant company
is liable to pay compensation and damages of Rs.15,00,000/-
alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the plaintiff for their defamatory
acts/imputations and Rs. 10,000/- as the plaintiff had paid Rs.
10,000/- to the defendant company.
CASE OF DEFENDANT AS PER ITS WRITTEN STATEMENT
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 7/40
21. The defendant has filed its written statement by taking
preliminary objections that the plaint filed by the plaintiff is
frivolous, vexatious, devoid of merits and is an abuse of process of
law and the plaint suffer from the virus of suppressio varie,
suggestio falsi
22. It is further contended that bare perusal of the suit would
reveal that the present suit has been filed by plaintiff as a counter
blast to the dishonest Abstraction of Electricity (DAE) Bill dated
01.02.2013 raised against Ms Paramjeet Kaur ( wife of the
plaintiff) for a sum of Rs. 32,447/-. It is further contended that
under the garb of present false and vexatious suit, the plaintiff is
trying to put an undue pressure, so that the defendant indirectly
succumbs & would not proceed with the demand as raised vide
Supplementary/Assessment Bill dated 01.02.2013 for DAE.
23. It is further contended that plaintiff is praying for damages
and compensation of Rs. 15 lacs for defamation and the relief
claimed by the plaintiff has not been properly valued in the plaint
and plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fees, as per the Court
Fees Act and as such the plaint is liable to be rejected as per order
VII rule 11 (b) & (c) of CPC.
24. It is further contended that the present suit is without any
cause of action against the defendant and it is nothing but an
attempt to harass the defendant. It is further contended that
plaintiff has filed the suit with malafide intention which contains
false averments and incorrect facts. It is further contended that
plaintiff has not mentioned in the plaint w.r.t any act or action of
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 8/40
the defendant company which are or were done with an intention
to defame the plaintiff.
25. It is further contended that defendant company had no
malafide intention to drag the plaintiff in previous litigation,
however, the defendant acted on the basis of inspection report,
load report and other related documents which were prepared by
the officers of the defendant company as per Electricity Act, 2003
and DERC, therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed on this
ground alone with exemplary cost with regard thereto as per
provisions of section 35 A of CPC, 1908.
26. It is further contended that there was not any act either by
spoken, written or any signed visible representation by any officers
of the defendant company. Hence, all the allegations alleged by
the plaintiff is baseless and just to hamper the reputation of the
defendant company, which was just discharging its duty in the
dignified manner as well as within the regulations of Delhi
Electricity board.
27. It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed the
present suit with malafide intention which contains false
averments and incorrect facts. It is further contended that the
Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi vide gazette notification
no. F.11(93)/2003/power/2291 dated 12.09.2007 has appointed
technical officers not below the rank of Assistant Executive
Engineer/Assistant Manager dealing with distribution,
enforcement and commercial functions of the defendant company
as well as other companies as authorized officer for the purpose of
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 9/40
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further contented that
in view, thereof, the authorized officer of the defendant company
in exercise of the power conferred under section 135(2) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 is authorized to enter, inspect, search, seize
and break open any such device or search any place when it has
reason to believe that the electricity is being unauthoizedly used
and he can further examine and seize any relevant document.
Hence, the inspection was carried as per the law, and having no
malafide intention to defame the plaintiff and his wife.
28. It is further contended in the written statement that
defendant conducted the inspection at the premises of plaintiff as
per Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the DERC Regulation. It is
further contended that the inspection team found Ms Pramjeet
Kaur indulged in DAE by way of illegal shunts in meter bearing
No. 23165155, through which four illegal holes were found and
hence the case of Meter Tempering (DAE) was booked against
Paramjeet Kaur.
29. It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit
with malafide intention which contains false averments and
incorrect facts. It is further contended that as per the complaint of
the plaintiff against Mr. Sunil for demanding bribe, the vigilance
department of the defendant company conducted an internal
inquiry and found that no person in the name of Sh. Sunil is
working in MMG(D) Janakpuri. It is submitted that the person
who had allegedly demanded the bribe from the plaintiff may be an
imposter and an outsider and as per the record available with the
defendant company no such person in the name of Sunil was
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 10/40
working in defendant company as such the allegations against the
defendant is false and frivolous as there is no such documentary
evidence showing that these acts was done by the team members of
the defendant company.
30. It is further contended that plaintiff must prove the loss
suffered due to the act or omission of the defendant, in order to
allege and receive monetary compensation. It is further contended
that there has been no such quantified loss enunciated by the
plaintiff in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is not entitled to
any damage as there is no supporting documents to prove that he
has suffered any damage or loss by reason of any acts or omission
of the defendant.
31. It is further contended that the present plaint qua
defendant is filed on mere conjunctures and surmises. It is
submitted that wife of plaintiff has committed the aforesaid
offence under section 135 read with section 138 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, hence there is no case made out against the defendant
with respect to draging the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.
32. It is submitted that on the basis of inspection documents,
the defendant company had filed a criminal complaint titled ”
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited vs Paramjeet Kaur” before the
Special Electricity Court, ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari vide Criminal
complaint No. 331 of 2013 under section 135 read with section 138
of Electricity Act, 2003. It is further submitted that the
proceedings in the aforesaid complaint have been abated on
account of death of User ( wife of plaintiff).
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 11/40
33. It is further submitted that therefore, there was no
intention to hamper the reputation and good will of the plaintiff
and his wife by the defendant as being alleged by the plaintiff in
the present plaint. It is further averred that despite the fact that the
defendant replaced the meter with a new meter as per regulation of
DMRC to provide basic amenities, the plaintiff has made this false
and frivolous plaint.
34. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement filed
by the defendant and denied all the objections taken by the
defendant.
ISSUES
35. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues have
been framed vide order dated 08.02.2021.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of
Rs. 15,10,000/- as damages? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate
and for which period? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF
36. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, has examined
himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex
PW-1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of his plaint and relied
upon documents which are as follows:-
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 12/40
i). Ex.PW1/1 ( OSR): Copy of Aadhar Card
ii). Ex.PW1/2 (colly, 21 pages) : Certified copy of
complaint filed by defendant U/s 135 read with Sec. 138 of
Electricity Act in criminal complaint no. 331/13 titled BSES
Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Paramjeet Kaur alongwith documents.
iii). Ex.PW1/3 ( Colly. 7 pages) : Certified copy of
examination-in-chief and cross-examination of AR of defendant.
iv). Ex.PW1/4: Copy of death certificate his wife.
v). Ex.PW1/ 5 (OSR): Copy of complaint filed by him
against the employees of BSES before General Manager, BSES
Rajdhani Power Ltd., Hari Nagar, New Delhi dated 10.12.2012.
vi). Ex.PW1/6 (colly, 2 pages) (OSR): Copy of complaint
filed by him before CTR Bhatia, General Manager, BSES,
Rajdhani, Hari Nagar, Delhi dated 11.03.2013.
vii). Ex.PW1/7 ( colly. 2 pages)(OSR): Copy of complaint
filed by him against the Manager/HOD Enforcement Office,
Opposite Deen Dayal Hospital, dated 08.09.2014.
viii) Ex PW-1/8 (OSR) : Copy of complaint before Chief
Vigilance Officer, BSES Sub Station Building, CR Park, Delhi
dated 17.10.2014.
ix) Ex PW-1/9 (colly. 3 pages) ( OSR): Copy of complaint
sent to SHO, PS Hari Nagar, dated 16.01.2014.
x) Ex. PW1/10 (OSR): Copy of complaint sent to ACP,
PS Tilak Nagar, dated 06.04.2015.
xi) Ex PW-1/11 (OSR): Copy of complaint sent to DCP,
Rajouri Garden, dated 20.04.2015.
xii) Ex PW-1/12 (Colly. 5 pages) (OSR): Copy of notice
dated 18.09.2013 sent by Consumer Redressal Forum, Sub Station
Building, Sector-5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi and copy of order
dated 31.07.2013.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 13/40
xii) Ex PW-1/13 (Colly. 8 pages) (OSR): Copy of legal
notice dated 16.02.2019 alongwith receipts dated 18.02.2019 and
tracking reports.
PW-1 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of the
defendant.
37. In the cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he has
studied upto higher secondary and he knows the contents of his
affidavit in evidence. PW-1 denied the suggestion that on
06.11.2012, the official of BSES had conducted an inspection at
the premises in question i.e. K-8, Grond floor, Fateh Nagar, New
Delhi or that prepared inspection report, load report & seizure
memo.
38. PW-1 further deposed that he is not aware whether any
lab report dated 18.12.2012 was prepared in respect of meter
bearing No. 23165155. PW-1 admitted that meter bearing No.
23165155 was installed at his aforesaid premises and the said
meter was removed by the BSES on 06.11.2012. However, PW-1
voluntarily deposed that on 03.11.2012, BSES employees came at
premises no. K-8, where four other meters were installed and all
the said four meters were changed by the BSES except his meter.
39. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know the
correct/full name of Mr. Sharmaji as mentioned in para no. 9 of his
affidavit in evidence. PW-1 further admitted that he had filed a
case in Consumer Redressal Forum against the BSES and the said
Forum had imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- upon BSES. The said
penalty was imposed against the BSES due to non production of
any document by it. PW-1 further deposed that he is not aware
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 14/40
about the disposal of the aforesaid complaint filed before the
Consumer Redressal Forum, whether it was disposed off due to
pendency of a complaint filed before Special Electricity Court, Tis
Hazari.
40. PW-1 admitted that his name is not mentioned in any
document prepared by the BSES, in respect of theft of electricity.
However, the name of his wife i.e. Smt. Paramjit Kaur was
mentioned in the said document.
41. PW-1 further admitted that the BSES had not published
in any newspaper the name of his wife Smt. Paramjeet Kaur in
respect of theft in question. PW-1 further admitted that after
receipt of notice from the Special Electricity Court, his wife had
appeared before the said court. He further admitted that the
proceeding of the said criminal complaint was abated after the
demise of his wife.
42. PW-1 further deposed that he has not filed any other
suit/case for declaration for declaring the theft bill in question
against BSES before Civil Court. He has not received any notice
U/s 163 of Electricity Act from the BSES prior to inspection dated
06.11.2012. PW-1 further admitted that he had not filed any
application for discharge of his wife before the Special Electricity
Court in case titled BSES Vs. Paramjeet Kaur. PW-1 further
admitted that he had also not filed any quashing petition before the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court for quashing the proceeding of Special
Electricity Court in case titled BSES Vs. Paramjeet Kaur.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 15/40
43. Shri Ibrahim Ali, official from the office of Surveillance
Department, C.R. Park, has appeared as PW-2 and brought the
summoned record i.e. complaint of Sh. Kanwal Jit Singh dated
05.09.2014, and the same has been exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A. The
witness further brought the record of complaint dated 17.10.2014
vide receipt no. 122, and the same has been exhibited as Ex.
PW-2/B.
44. Shri Pramod Kumar, Record Keeper from Enforcement,
Hari Nagar, BSES has appeared as PW-3 and brought the
summoned record i.e. original complaint filed by Sh. Kanwal Jit
Singh Nanda vide receipt No. 2071 dated 10.12.2012, vide receipt
no. 1647 dated 11.03.2013, receipt no. 1451 dated 17.01.2013, the
same are already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5, Ex. PW-1/6 and the
complaint dated 17.01.2013 vide receipt no. 1451 is Ex.
Pw-3/1(OSR). The witness further deposed that however, there is
no complaint vide receipt no. 4716 dated 08.09.2014 in the file
brought by him but the same has already been exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/7 in the examination of PW-1. The witness further deposed
that he has not brought the original meter bearing no. 23165155
vide connection no. 1610H6220148 as the same is with Division
office of Jank Puri.
45. ASI Ved Prakash from the office of DCP office, appeared
in the witness box as PW-4 and deposed that he has not brought the
summoned record i.e. complaint filed by Sh.Kanwaljit Singh
Nanda vide DD No. 4367 dated 20.04.2015, as the connected
registers upto 31.12.2019 have been destroyed as per provision
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 16/40
contained in P.P.R 11.31. PW-4 has placed on record the copy of
the order of Asstt. Commissioner of police as Ex. 4/-1 (OSR).
46. ASI Santbir Singh from P.S. Hari Nagar, appeared in the
witness box as PW-5 and deposed that he has not brought the
summoned record i.e. complaint filed by Sh.Kanwaljit Singh
Nanda vide DD No. 26 B dated 16.01.2014, as the connected
record upto 31.12.2018 has been destroyed as per provisions
contained in P.P.R 11.3. PW-4 has placed on record the letter of
SHO, P.S. Hari Nagar as Ex. PW-5/1 and the order regarding
destruction of the record issued on behalf of DCP, West, Delhi
alongwith list of destroyed record as Mark A.
47. Sh. Surender Singh, JA from the office of Record Room
Session, Tis Hazari Courts appeared as PW-6 and brought
following the summoned record i.e.
(i) Copy of Criminal Complaint no. 331/2013 U/s 135 r/w
138 of Electricity Act 2003 titled BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd Vs
Paramjit Kaur as Ex. PW-6/1.
(ii) Copy of enforcement inspection report dated 06.12.2012
as Ex. PW-6/2(OSR),
(iii) Copy of notice u/s 163 of Electricity Act, 2003 for the
address A-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi vide BR no. 1630-
0A-001674, as Ex. PW-6/3 (OSR)
(iv) Copy of report of Mr. Abijeet Kumar, Assistant Manager,
BSES dated 05.12.2012 as Ex. PW-6/4 (OSR).
(v) Copies of 4 photographs (out of which two photographs
are same of one another) dated 18.01.2007 as Ex. PW-6/5 (OSR).
(vi) The examination in chief ( one page) dated 06.04.2016 and
cross-examination ( two pages) dated 12.07.2016 of Sh. Abhijit
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 17/40
Kumar, Assistant Manager as Ex. PW-6/6 (OSR) and Ex. PW-6/7
(OSR).
PW-6 further deposed that he has compared the
above said documents with the documents in the case file brought
by him.
PW-6 further deposed that the documents exhibited
today in his statement are true coy of the documents contained in
the judicial file brought by him, however, Ex. PW-6/2 To Ex.
PW-6/7 are not certified copies and the exhibit numbers are also
not mentioned on the above said documents exhibited today
whereas exhibit numbers are mentioned on the documents
contained in judicial file brought by him today.
48. Sh. Abhijeet Kumar, Senior Manager, from the office of O
& M office, W Block appeared as PW-7 and deposed that he has
brought the summoned record i.e. Cabon copy of enforcement
inspection report dated 6.12.2012 and exhibited the same as Ex.
PW-6/2 ( OSR). PW-7 further deposed that he has also brought the
meter bearing no. 23165155, colour orange and its photograph
dated 18.01.2007 and the same has already been exhibited in the
testimony of PW-6 as Ex. PW-6/5 (OSR) but he has not brought
the original and carbon copy of notice under Section 163 of
Electricity Act, 2003 vide reference No. BR-163-0A-001674 of
Paramjeet Kaur Vide electricity meter no. 23165155 and CA no.
102864737, which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-6/3, as the same
is not traceable.
49. Thereafter PW-7 was confronted with the notice Ex.
PW-6/3 and asked, there is cutting in the said notice at point A to B,
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 18/40
what do you have to say? In response to above question, the
witness deposed that “it is correct”. PW-7 further deposed that it is
correct that the address bearing no. A-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi,
mentioned on the said notice has been written by him.
50. Vide separate statement of the plaintiff, evidence on
behalf of plaintiff stands closed on 05.11.2024.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE.
51. In order to prove its case defendant examined Sh. Abhijit
Kumar, Sr. Manager with BSES as DW-1, who tendered in
evidence his affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and he relied upon the
documents already exhibited in the evidence of PW-6, as Ex
PW-6/1, Ex. PW6/2 & Ex. PW6/3.
52. DW-1 during his cross-examined deposed that his name is
mentioned in the list of witness filed on behalf of the defendant.
However, after seeing the court file, the witness deposed that there
is no list of witnesses filed on behalf of the defendant. No
authority letter has been issued in his favour by the defendant to
depose in this case.
53. DW-1 further deposed that in December, 2012, he was
posted as Assistant Manager with the defendant and posted at Hari
Nagar Enforcement Department, West and his working hours were
from 9.15 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. DW-1 further admitted that entries
were made in the official register of BSES whenever they went for
inspection of any premises. The time of departure from the office
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 19/40
and the address of the premise where the inspection of the
premises is conducted, are also mentioned in the register. DW-1
further deposed that the total time consumed during the inspection
at the premise is also mentioned in the said register. All the
proceedings conducted at the premises are not mentioned in the
register, only the name of the persons are mentioned in the register,
again said all the proceedings conducted at the premises are
mentioned in the register.
54. In response to a specific question, whether all the
inspection proceedings are required to be mentioned in the register
or not, DW-1 deposed that, No. Only time of departure and
address of the inspected premises are required to be mentioned in
the register.
55. DW-1 further deposed that no entry is made in the
register regarding leaving from the premises after conducting the
inspection but the time of reaching at office is mentioned in the
register. Neither he nor BSES had placed the copy of the register
in the case filed by BSES before the Special Electricity Court titled
as BSES Vs Paramjeet Kaur CC No. 324035/16. DW-1 further
deposed that neither he nor BSES has placed the copy of that
register in this case. DW-1 denied the suggestion that they have
not placed the copy of that register in this case as well as in the
above mentioned case because no inspection was carried out by
them on 06.12.2012 at K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi.
56. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that the enforcement
inspection report contains two sets i.e. one original and one carbon
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 20/40
copy. The original enforcement inspection report is lying in the
office record. The carbon copy of the enforcement inspection
report also lying in the office record. DW-1 further deposed that
he can produce the both original and carbon copy of enforcement
inspection report in the court.
57. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that the notice under
section 163 of Electricity Act contains two sets i.e. original and
one carbon copy. The original has been sent to the consumer and
carbon copy of the same is retained in the office record, however,
he can produce the carbon copy of the above said notice in the
court.
58. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that the address mentioned
on the notice under section 163 as A-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi is
written by me. DW-1 voluntarily deposed that he inadvertently
mentioned K-8 as A-8. The correct address was K-8, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi). DW-1 admitted the suggestion that he had not given
any other notice under section 163 of Electricity Act mentioning
the address K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi to the plaintiff or his
wife. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that he had cut the two dates
in the notice Ex. PW-6/3 and mentioned date 5.12.2012. No public
witness was called by him at the time of pasting the notice at the
premises of the plaintiff as it was found locked.
59. DW-1 denied the suggestion that on 5.12.2012, he had
not pasted any notice at the address K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi,
therefore there is no signature of any public witness on the said
notice. DW-1 denied the suggestion that the above said notice was
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 21/40
not pasted or sent at K-8, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi, therefore, the
address K-8, Fateh Nagar, is not mentioned in the above said
notice. DW-1 further deposed that the premises was inspected on
6.12.2012 around 4.30 P.M. The plaintiff was residing at the IInd
floor of the premises, at the time of inspection. DW-1 admitted the
suggestion that before inspection, he took permission from his
seniors. He took permission from Sh. Prabhash Chand, the then
DGM. No written permission given by the then DGM or any other
senior officers for conducted the inspection and it was only given
on telephone.
60. DW-1 further deposed that no public witness was called
by him to join the inspection proceedings on 6.12.2012. He never
called any public person to join the inspection proceedings to
become a public witness. DW-1 denied that as no inspection was
carried out at the premises of the plaintiff on 6.12.2012, therefore
there is neither any public witness mentioned in the any report nor
any signatures of independent person at enforcement inspection
report dated 6.12.2012.
61. DW-1 further deposed that he has no knowledge about
the case filed by the plaintiff against the BSES before Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. DW-1
further deposed that he does not know whether Mr. Surinder
Kumar was the Legal Retainer of the defendant in the year 2012-
2013. He does not have any knowledge whether the Ld. P.O. of
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi
had imposed a cost Rs. 2000/- upon the defendant for not
producing the genuine documents deliberately.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 22/40
62. DW-1 further deposed that he has not brought the original
and carbon copy of the enforcement inspection report and the
carbon copy of the notice u/s 163 of the Electricity Act. DW-1
denied the suggestion that he has not brought the original and
carbon enforcement inspection report and the original and carbon
copy of notice u/s 163 of Electricity Act in the court today because
there was tampering by him in those documents. DW-1 further
denied the suggestion that he has not brought the above mentioned
documents today in the court because those documents were
prepared fraudulently. DW-1 further deposed that he cannot show
any document, bye-law, rules regulation etc. of BSES that only the
time of departure and address of the inspected premises are
required to be mentioned in the register and nothing else is
required to be mentioned. In response to a specific question,
whether you have tampered on the photographs of the inspection
which has been placed on court record, the witness deposed that
‘No’.
63. DW-1 admitted the suggestion that the photographs are on
the same date which is mentioned on the photographs. DW-1
further admitted that they went for inspection of the premises of
the plaintiff on the date which is mentioned on the photographs Ex.
PW-6/5 ( Colly). DW-1 denied the suggestion that they had not
inspected the premises of the plaintiff K-8, ground floor, Fateh
Nagar, New Delhi on 5.12.2012.
64. Vide separate statement of ld. Counsel for the defendant,
evidence on behalf of defendant stands closed on 11.03.2025.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 23/40
FINAL ARGUMENTS
65. I have heard final arguments from both sides and perused
the case filed. The judgments relied upon by ld. counsels for the
parties have been duly considered while passing this judgment.
66. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon one judgment
of Hon’ble High court of Orrisa, titled Sh. Sri Naveen Dass & Anr.
Vs Smt. Ranjita Singh, FAO NO. 75/2015.
67. Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following
judgment:
1. Basudeb Dey Vs Swati Dey & Ors. (reported in (2010)
SCC Online Cal 2052).
2. Rajbir Singh Sharma Vs Shri Ram (reported in 2004 (77)
DRJ 87).
3. Puran Singh & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors. (reported in
(1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 205).
4. Natho Devi & Ors. Vs Nand Kishore ( reported in 2012
SCC Online Del 4515).
5. Kapoor Chand Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
(Decided by Ms Veena Rani, ld. ADJ-06, West, Tis Hazari
Courts).
6. Rajender Singh Vs CS Sakharwal & Ors. ( Decided by Sh.
Balwant Rai Bansal, Ld. ADJ-05 (South-West), Dwarka
Courts.
68. Contentions of ld. counsel for the Plaintiff
1. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that due to filing
of criminal complaint against the wife of plaintiff and due to
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 24/40
calling plaintiff as well as wife of plaintiff as thief, the defendant
has committed offence of defamation and plaintiff is entitled to
receive compensation for the same from the defendant.
2. He further argued that plaintiff can file case for damages
due to the defamation of his wife as the defamation of the wife of
plaintiff, has also effected the reputation of the plaintiff.
3. He further argued that it is proved that false DAE Bill was
raised by the defendant as the photographs filed by the defendant
in criminal case is of year 2007, whereas the defendant has alleged
that inspection of the meter of plaintiff was conducted in the year
2012 and there is also cutting on the notice issued by the defendant
u/s 163 of Electricity Act.
69. CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE
DEFENDANT
1. Ld. counsel for defendant has argued that the criminal
case was filed against the wife of plaintiff by the defendant on the
basis of inspection report, lab. report and other documents as per
electricity Act and there was sufficient evidence to prove that theft
of electricity had been committed by the wife of plaintiff.
2. He further argued that the said criminal complaint was
abated due to death of wife of plaintiff and there is no finding of the
court on record that the said criminal case was false or had been
filed for ulterior motives.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 25/40
3. He further argued that, only case for damages due to
malicious prosecution can be filed on the ground of false criminal
complaint but suit for defamation cannot be filed and that case for
damages due to malicious prosecution could be filed by the wife of
plaintiff and not by the plaintiff.
4. He further argued that plaintiff has failed to prove his
case. He further argued that no witness has been examined by the
plaintiff to prove that his reputation has been tarnished due to acts
of defendant or due to filing of above said criminal complaint, the
reputation/dignity/ image of plaintiff or his wife has lower down in
the eyes of respectable members of society.
5. Ld. counsel for the defendant has further argued that after
the death of wife of plaintiff, no right to sue survives in favour of
the plaintiff for filing suit for damages and he has relied upon the
following judgment in this regard.
6. In a case titled Basudeb Dey Vs Swati Dey & Ors.
(reported in (2010) SCC Online Cal 2052), it has been held that
1. In support of his submission, he has referred
to the decision of Puran Singh V. State of Punjab
reported in ( 1996) 2 SCC 205, and Girijanandini
Devi Vs Bijendra Narain Choudhary reported in
AIR 1967 SC 1124.
In the case of Puran Singh (supra) it has been
stated in para 4 that a personal action dies with the
death of the person on the maxim actio personalis
moritur cum persona. It has also been clearly stated
therein that this doctrine applies in a limited class of
actions ex delicto, such as action for damages for
defamation, assault or other personal injuries not
causing the death of the party. And in other actions
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 26/40
where after the death of party the granting of the
relief would be nugatory. The decision referred in
Girijanandini Devi ( Supra) also lays down the same
doctrine of actio personals.
2. Under the circumstances, upon giving due
consideration of the relief sought for by the original plaintiff,
I am of the view that the relief sought for is nothing but the
personal action of the original plaintiff and so the doctrine of
actio personalis shall apply.
FINDINGS ON ISSUES
70. Findings on issue no. 1 & 2
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of
Rs. 15,10,000/- as damages? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate
and for which period? OPP
71. Issue no. 1 & 2 are taken together as they are inter
connected and having mutual bearing.
72. The burden to prove issue no. 1 & 2 is upon the plaintiff
and in order to prove the said issue, plaintiff has examined seven
witnesses.
73. The plaintiff is claiming damages on the basis of
defamation in the present suit, mainly on following grounds:
1. The defendant had made false allegations of electricity
theft against the plaintiff and his wife and had filed false criminal
complaint of electricity theft against the wife of plaintiff u/s 135
read with section 138 of Electricity Act and created a wrongfulCiv DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 27/40
remark in the minds of neighbours and respectable members of the
society against the plaintiff and his wife and due to above acts of
defendant, the plaintiff has lost his earned reputation and goodwill.
2. The officials of the defendant had called the plaintiff and
his wife as thief, in the presence of respectable members of the
society and tried to tarnish the image of the plaintiff and his wife
by calling as thief. It is further alleged that the defendant had
branded the plaintiff and his wife as thief though they were never
involved in the aforesaid act in any manner.
74. Defamation is a criminal wrong as well as a civil wrong.
Defamation as a criminal wrong has been defined u/s 499 of IPC.
The civil law of defamation in India is not codified and it is based
on common law, which is applicable to India. The defamation as
civil wrong is a tort. Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a
person. Every person has a right to maintain and preserve his
reputation. Reputation is not what a person thinks of
himself/herself. It is what others think of him/her. The test
whether a person has been defamed or not is the view point of right
thinking members of the society, what they think about him after
publication of defamatory statement. The reputation of a person
must be lower down in the eyes of right thinking members after
publication of defamatory statement.
75. Reputation forms an intrinsic part of everyone’s life.
Every citizen of India has fundamental right to protect his
reputation and dignity and thus right has been considered as part of
fundamental right of life and liberty provided under Article 21 of
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 28/40
the Constitution of India. To protect this right, every citizen has
right to approach Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme
Court under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. The defamed person can seek monetary damages from the
offender by filing civil suit in civil courts and he can also file
criminal case against the offender u/s 499 of IPC for getting
punished the offender.
76. The defamation may be committed either by way of
writing which is described by the terms Libel or by way of spoken
words which is described by the term Slander. In libel, the
representation is in a permanent form like writing, movie, picture
etc. whereas in slander, the representation is in a transient form like
spoken words or gesture etc. Some judgments passed by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, on the aspect of Defamation have been
mentioned in the succeeding paras.
77. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in a case titled,Prof.
Imtiaz Ahmad vs Durdana Zamir ( 2009) 109 DRJ 357 has held as
under:
7. Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a
statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling
of other persons towards the Plaintiff. A statement is to be
judged by the standard of the ordinary, right thinking members
of the society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted
in the Plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or CS (OS) 569.06 Prof.
Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir Page 3 Of 6 regarded with the
feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or dis- esteem
or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his
office, profession, calling, trade or business. The defamation is
a wrong done by a person to another’s reputation. Since, it is
considered that a man’s reputation, in a way, is his property and
reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any
other form of property. Reputation of a man primarily and
basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquittance orCiv DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 29/40
general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others.
The reputation spread by communication of thought and
information from one to another. Where a person alleges that his
reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been
lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or
his friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for
words which merely injure his feeling or cause annoyance to
him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for
claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the
words must be such which prejudice a man’s reputation and are
so offensive so as to lower a man’s dignity in the eyes of others.
Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground
of defamation.
8. Where the words are used without giving impression of an
oblique meaning but the Plaintiff pleads an innuendo, asking the
Court to read the words in a manner in which the Plaintiff
himself understands it, the Plaintiff has to plead that the libel
was understood by the readers with the knowledge of subject or
extensive facts as was being understood by the Plaintiff.
11. Moreover, the defendant had a right to make complaints of
her grievances to the authorities. Whenever a person makes a
complaint against someone to the lawful authorities and in that
complaint he makes imputations against the person complained
of, it cannot be considered that the person has publicized or
publicly made defamatory averments against a person. If a
prosecution is initiated against the person on the basis of such
averments and the person is acquitted holding that the
complaint was false, then only a cause of action arises against
the complainant for launching a case for false prosecution or
for damages on other grounds. Until and unless a competent
court holds that complaint was false, no cause of action arises.
Approaching a competent authority and praying that the
authority should come to the rescue of the complainant and
prevent inference of the plaintiff in the family affairs of the
defendant cannot amount to a defamatory imputation per se
and even if it is published, it does not tend to show that the
defendant had intended to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.
78. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled, ” Ram
Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy” 2006 AIR (Delhi) 300 has
discussed as to what is defamation statement and observed as
under:
“Defamation is a public communication which tends
to injure the reputation of another. What statements are
defamatory, and the span of defences varies fromCiv DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 30/40
jurisdiction to jurisdictions but there is common
agreement in all jurisdictions that statements that are
unflattering, annoying, irksome, embarrassing or hurt
one’s feelings are not actionable. Common element in
all jurisdictions is the potential to injure the
reputation.”
79. In a case titled Abhijit Mishra Versus Wipro Limited,
CS(OS) 31/2021, decided on 14/07/2025, the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi has discussed the essential elements for proving civil
wrong of defamation for awarding damages and held as under: –
“55. At this juncture, it is imperative to emphasize that
every individual is vested with an intrinsic right to
reputation, which has been recognised as an integral
facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Any act that infringes this right is often
termed as defamatory. Interestingly, the concept of
defamation has been envisaged as an exception to the
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of
the Constitution. It is so because an act of defamation is
committed in the course of free exercise of the freedom
of speech and expression, when such exercise breaches
the permissible limits of speech and transcends from
the permissible to the impermissible. To establish any
injury or harm to the reputation of a person, whether
through spoken or written word, it is incumbent upon
the aggrieved party to demonstrate the fulfillment of
the essential elements of defamation. It is necessary to
enforce the law of defamation within its strict confines
and upon strict fulfilment of the pre-conditions, as any
excessive enforcement may have a chilling effect on
the cherished freedom of speech and expression. Thus,
while dealing with defamation, the Court always treads
a cautious path.
56. Civil defamation, though uncodified, in the Indian
context is governed by common law principles derived
from the English jurisprudence. It refers to a tortious
wrong whereby a person makes a false imputation
having the tendency to diminish another’s reputation in
the estimation of right-minded members of society.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 31/40
The essential constituents of civil defamation may be
summarised as follows:
(i) a false statement, whether written (libel) or
spoken (slander); and defamatory in nature i.e.,
it must have the effect of lowering the reputation
in the eyes of others (right-thinking members of
the society);
(ii) (ii) publication of such statement to at least one
person other than the plaintiff; and
(iii) (iii) identifiability, i.e., the statement must refer
to the plaintiff either expressly or by implication
(iv) (iv) Absence of a valid defence such as
justification, truth, or privilege.
57. The first essential of civil defamation is the
existence of a defamatory statement. The statement
must be such that it tends to expose the plaintiff to
hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or to cause them to be
shunned or avoided by society, thereby lowering their
moral or intellectual character in public estimation. It
is not sufficient that the words are insulting or unkind;
they must carry a false and defamatory imputation
when viewed through the lens of a reasonable person.
Even innuendo, where defamatory meaning is implied,
not stated expressly, can satisfy this requirement,
provided it would be so understood by those
acquainted with the plaintiff’s background.
58. The second requirement is publication, which is
the act of communicating the defamatory content to at
least one person other than the person defamed. It is
well established that communication of the fact to a
third party is indispensable for a successful civil
action. If the statement is made directly and solely to
the plaintiff, the tort of defamation is not complete, as
injury to reputation presupposes the perception of
others. The nuanced concept of defamation does not
take into account the personal perception of the person
allegedly defamed; rather, it takes into account the
perceptional effect of the statement on others
(subjectively addressed as „reasonable man,
„reasonable woman or „right thinking members of the
society). The essential nature of publication in cases of
defamation has also been reiterated by the Court in
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 32/40
Ruchi Kalra and Ors v. Slowform Media and ors . The
Court held that publication is a sine qua non for the tort
of defamation, as the actionable wrong arises only
upon communication of the defamatory matter to a
third party, thereby effectuating injury to the plaintiff’s
reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members
of society. It emphasised that mere authorship or
printing does not suffice; rather, liability accrues upon
the act of making the defamatory content known to
others, whether through circulation, dissemination, or
authorisation. The Court further clarified that
jurisdiction vests where the defamatory material is
accessed and reputational harm is suffered, and that
the tort is consummated only when the defamatory
imputation attains public knowledge, thereby giving
rise to civil consequences actionable under law. The
relevant extracts of the aforesaid read as under:
“Decoding the ambit of “publication in defamation
44. Publication of the defamatory statement is an
essential element of the cause of action in a suit for
damages for defamation. The injury caused by a libel
arises from the effect produced upon its readers.
Publication means the act of making the defamatory
statement known to any person or persons other than
the plaintiff himself (see Salmond on Torts, page-215,
Fourteenth Edition). It is the communication of words
or doing the defamatory act in the presence of at least
one person other than the person defamed. In the case
of Khima Nand v. Emperor 16, it was held as
under:-“There can be no offence of defamation unless
the defamatory statement is published or
communicated to a third party, that is, to a party other
than the person defamed.”
45. Publication is the act of making known the
defamatory matter, after it has been written, to some
person other than the person about whom it is written.
Liability for a publication arises from participation or
authorisation. Thus, where a libel is published in a
newspaper or book, everyone who has taken part in
publishing it, or in procuring its publication, or has
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 33/40
submitted material published in it, is prima facie liable
(see Gatley, page-234, Eighth Edition). To put it
otherwise, an act of publication involves a wide range
actions and could be done in any manner, however, the
elementary test is whether the act complained of has
exposed the defamatory matter to any person other than
the defamed person.
46. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court
in the case of Frank Finn Management Consultants v.
Subhash Motwani17 wherein it was held that
publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical
act of printing of the magazine but is of
communication of the libelous article to at least one
person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. The
relevant extracts of the decision read as under
“17. The wrong within the meaning of Section 19 of
the CPC in an action for defamation is done by the
publication. The defendants are confusing publication
in the sense of printing, with publication as in the case
of libel. The publication in the sense of a libel is not the
mechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of
communication of the libelous article to at least one
person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. In this
regard also see Aley Ahmed Abdi v Tribhuvan Nath
Seth 1979 All. LJ 542. If the magazine, as aforesaid,
has a circulation at Delhi, then it cannot be said that the
wrong would not be done to the plaintiff at Delhi and
thus the courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction under
Section 19 of the Act. A Division Bench in T.N.Seshan
v All India Dravida MunnetiraKazahagam 1996 AlHC
4283(AP) has taken the same view. Even If the test of
Section 20 of the CPC were to be applied, even then the
cause of action in part at least would accrue in Delhi. A
Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in the The
State of Maharashtrav. Sarvodaya Industries AIR 1975
Bombay 197 has held that thephrase wrong done in
Section 19 would clearly take in not only the initial
action complained of but its result and effect also and
Section19 is wide enough to take in those places where
the plaintiff actually suffered the loss because of the
alleged wrongful act. It was further held that the court
within whose local jurisdiction damage was caused orCiv DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 34/40
suffered or sustained, would clearly answer the
requirements of Section 19 for the purposes of the suits
mentioned therein. I respectfully concur with the said
view and unless Section 19 of the CPC is so
interpreted, the purpose thereof would be defeated.
Similarly, State of Meghalaya & Ors v Jyotsna Das
AIR17 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1049.231991 Gauhati
96 also held that wrong done includes and covers the
effect of the act. The counsel for the defendants has
relied upon Rashtriya Mahila Kosh v The Dale View
2007 IV AD (Delhi)593 to address the principle of
forum non conveniens. With respect, if under the CPC
the court has jurisdiction, I find it hard to hold that on
the doctrine in international law of forum non
conveniens the plaintiff can be non suited. I, therefore,
decide issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants.”
47. This Court, in the case of Deepak Kumar v.
Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd.18, held that it is settled
law that defamation takes place because a defamatory
statement or article or any other material is published
i.e. it comes to the knowledge of the public and the
appellant/plaintiff is brought down in the estimation of
the right- thinking people of the society. It was further
held that publication is a sine qua non with respect to
defamatory articles because defamation is only caused
when the general public learns about them.
48. Thus, it is crystal clear that publication is an
essential requirement for the culmination of
defamation.
59. The third essential is identifiability. The
defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff
expressly or by necessary implication, such that an
ordinary, reasonable person acquainted with the
plaintiff would understand that the statement pertains
to them. The aforenoted essential aligns with the
maxim certum est quod certum redid potest, i.e., that is
certain which can be made certain. It is not necessary
that the plaintiff be named; if the description is such
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 35/40
that those hearing or reading it can reasonably infer the
plaintiff’s identity, the requirement is satisfied.
60. Furthermore, the fourth essential element of civil
defamation is the absence of a valid legal defence at the
time of publication. For a defamatory statement to be
actionable, it must not be protected by any recognized
defence under law. Among the well-established
defences, justification of truth is one which allows the
defendant to escape liability by proving that the
impugned statement is substantially true. Another
defence is fair comment or honest opinion, which
applies when the statement pertains to a matter of
public interest and is based on true or provably factual
premises, even if the opinion itself is critical or severe.
Privilege also operates as a bar to liability. Absolute
privilege applies in certain protected contexts such as
judicial, parliamentary, or quasi-judicial proceedings,
while qualified privilege covers communications made
in good faith pursuant to a legal, moral, or social duty.
Additionally, statutory protections or express or
implied consent of the plaintiff may also defeat a claim.
Where any of these defences are successfully invoked,
the defamatory nature of the statement is neutralised in
the eyes of the law.”
80. In view of the above said judgment, these are the following
essential elements of civil defamation and plaintiff is required to
prove the same, in order to obtain decree for compensation on the
ground of defamation
1. The defendant must have made a defamatory
statement with respect to the plaintiff, and the said
statement must be false.
2. The defamatory statement may be made either
by written words or by spoken words.
3. The defamatory statement should lower the
plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of “right-thinking
members of society.”
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 36/40
4. There must be publication of defamatory
statement to the third persons. The defamatory
statement must be communicated to some person other
than the plaintiff. Communication to a third party is
essential. Defamation is incomplete if the statement is
made only to the plaintiff and not communicated to
third person.
5. The defamatory statement must be referred to
the plaintiff either directly or by implication. It should
be reasonably understood by others to be made about
the plaintiff.
6. The defendant must not have a valid legal
defence such as:
Justification (i.e., the statement is justified)
Truth (truth is a complete defence in civil defamation)
Privilege (e.g., statements made in parliamentary or
judicial proceedings).
81. Plaintiff/PW-1 has reiterated the contents of his plaint, in
respect of allegations of defamation, in his examination in chief by
way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. The plaintiff has not disclosed the
names of officials of the defendant, who called him and his wife as
thief, in his plaint as well as in his evidence. The evidence of
plaintiff is silent in this respect.
82. The plaintiff has also not disclosed the names of his
neighbours or any respectable members of society, in whose
presence, the above said remarks have been made by the officials
of the defendant.
83. The plaintiff has not examined any of his neighbour or
any respectable member of the society to prove the imputation ofCiv DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 37/40
theft made by any official of defendant and in whose eyes, the
reputation of plaintiff and his wife was lower down.
84. The plaintiff is alleging that in the complaint, the
defendant had filed photographs of 18.01.2007 whereas the
defendant has alleged that the theft of electricity has been
committed, in the year 2012 and there is cutting regarding date of
the notice and certain contents of the notice, in the notice issued
u/s 163 of Electricity Act.
85. The plaintiff has admitted the removal of his electricity
meter by officials of defendant on 6.11.2012. PW-1 has denied the
preparation of lab report of his electricity meter. Plaintiff has also
admitted that the defendant has not published in any newspaper the
name of his wife in respect of electricity theft.
86. It is admitted case of the parties that the criminal
complaint filed by defendant against the wife of plaintiff was
abated due to death of wife of plaintiff and no findings on merit has
been given by the court, in the said complaint case. There is no
findings of the court that the complaint case filed by the defendant
against wife of plaintiff was false and had been filed with ulterior
motive by the defendant.
87. The plaintiff or his wife have never challenged the
electricity theft Bill issued by the defendant by filing civil suit for
declaration.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 38/40
88. The wife of plaintiff has expired. She alone can file suit
for malicious prosecution, on the ground of false case of electricity
theft filed by defendant against her. Ld. counsel for plaintiff has
argued that he has filed the present suit for compensation on the
ground of defamation of plaintiff and his wife, committed by the
defendant.
89. There is only self serving statement of plaintiff regarding
calling of plaintiff and his wife as thief by the officials of
defendant, in the presence of respectable members of the society.
The plaintiff has not examined any respectable member of the
society or any of his neighbour for proving the above said remarks
made by the officials of defendant against plaintiff and his wife.
The plaintiff has not even disclosed the name of the officials of the
defendant company, who called plaintiff and his wife as thief. The
plaintiff has not even disclosed the name of any person of public,
in whose presence the above said remarks were made by the
officials of defendant. In the absence of any corroborated
evidence, the testimony of plaintiff is not reliable. In view of
above said facts, it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove that the
officials of the defendant had called him and his wife as thief.
90. For claiming damages on the ground of defamation,
communication of defamatory statement to the third party is
essential but plaintiff has failed to prove the communication of
imputation of theft by officials of the defendant company to the
third party. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that the fact of
filing of criminal complaint against his wife by the defendant, was
in the knowledge of third person and due to said fact the reputation
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 39/40
of plaintiff was lower down in the eyes of third persons and he
suffered financial loss. In view of above said facts, it is held that
plaintiff has failed to prove that due to acts of defendant, his
reputation was lower down, in the eyes of respectable members of
society.
91. The defendant has acted on the basis of inspection report,
lab. report and other documents, as per Electricity Act, 2003 and
DERC. Without any finding of the court in the criminal complaint
case that the criminal complaint was filed falsely by the defendant,
it cannot be held that defendant had filed the false criminal
complaint with ulterior motives. Moreover, merely filing of
criminal complaint, without any further act of communications
defamatory statement to third person. No case for seeking
damages is made out.
92. In view of forgoing facts and discussions, it is held that
plaintiff has failed to prove issue no. 1 & 2. Accordingly, issue no.
1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the
defendant.
Relief
93. In view of finding on issue no. 1 & 2, the suit of the
plaintiff stands dismissed without cost. Decree Sheet be prepared
accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance. SHIV Digitally signed by SHIV
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.08.20 17:11:20
+0530
Announced in open Court (SHIV KUMAR)
today on 20th August, 2025 DJ-02, West Distt.
Tis Hazari courts
Delhi.
Civ DJ No. 258-19 Kanwaljit Singh Nanda Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 40/40