2003 PLP 1699 (CLC)

Recovery of damages

Quantum of damages

Determining factors-- In order to assess a fair quantum of general damages. Court must keep in view the nature of publication/communication, to whom it is made, quantum circulation, range, extent and medium of publication/communication, status and reputation of a person in the community or society and impact of libel on the person targeted in such publication/ communication

Each of such variable factors have its own impact on the assessment of injury, loss or damage caused to such person. Muneer A. Malik and Zia-ul-Haq Makhaoom for Plaintiffs. Nemo for Defendant. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2003. Through this suit, plaintiffs have claimed both special and general damages in the sum of Rs.100 million against the defendant for libelous communication i.e. Rs.50 million claimed as general damages for the loss to the reputation with interest @ 18% and Rs.50 million as special damages for the loss of business suffered by the plaintiffs together with interest @ 18 % from the date of institution of the suit till Defendant was served, undertaking was filed and later on Mr. S. Muhammad Ali, Advocate filed a fax copy of the Vakalatnama, said to be signed by the defendant. Original Vakalatnama was never filed. Later on, learned counsel for the defendant, Mr. S. Muhammad Ali, filed an application seeking discharge under rule 50 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules. Said application was granted. None has appeared for the defendant. Instant proceedings are non-contentious. Therefore, the arguments of plaintiffs' counsel was heard on merits. Facts relevant for disposal of this suit are that the plaintiff No. 1 claims to be a businessman and Managing Director of plaintiff No.2 stationed at Lahore, it is averred that who commands great respect in the business and social circles of Pakistan. Plaintiff No.2 a Corporate entity is manufacturer and exporter of terry towels and allied products worldwide. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that the defendant approached the plaintiffs with the business proposal for the import and market of the plaintiff's product in U.S.A. Plaintiff carried on business with the defendant. There appears to be some differences between the parties regarding the quality and range of product. It is claimed that the defendant obtained cheap imitations of the plaintiff's product from the local manufacturers, which caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation. In the wake of such dispute, the defendant addressed a letter to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi, which according to the plaintiff contained insinuating comments against the plaintiff in order to coerce the plaintiff to accede its demand. According to the plaintiffs, by addressing such communiqu the-plaintiffs have been defamed in the social circles as well as in business community which lowered the plaintiff esteem and goodwill in their eyes besides causing loss to their business. In the foregoing background, the plaintiff has claimed damages for the libelous communication. Mr. Muneer A. Malik, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the Court without proof of special loss may grant general damages when it comes to a conclusion that general damages as to goodwill and reputation has been caused. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case-laws reported as Dr. Q.M. Qarni v. Mir Khatilur Rehman and 4 others PLD 1975 Kar. 379 and Harold Robert Henry Lind v. British Inulated Callender's Construction Co. Ltd. PLD 1970 Kar.

315. Having heard the arguments and perused the record. Insinuation expressed and communicated to third person by written word, signs or picture tantamounting to undermine, tarnish, blot the goodwill, reputation of a person is libel. To constitute lible, it is necessary that insinuation is communicated to third person(s). In Blacks Law Dictionary Sixth Edition, it is defined to mean:-- "A method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, or signs. In its most general sense, any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another. A false and unprivileged publication in writing of defamatory material. Bright v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 51 Cal. App. 3d 852, 124 Cal. Rptr. 598,

604. A maliciously written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business or profession. Corabi v. Curtis Pub. Co., 441 Power of Attorney, 432, 273 A.2d 899, 904." "Affects his reputation, tends to hold him up to ridicule, contempt, shame, disgrace, or obloquy, to degrade him in the estimation of the community, to induce an evil opinion of him, to make him an object to reproach, to diminish his respectability or abridge his comforts, to change his position in society for the worse, to dishonour or discredit him in the estimation of the public, or his friends and acquaintances, or to deprive him of friendly intercourse in society, or cause him to be shunned or avoided, or where it is charged that one has violated his public duty as a public officer. Almost any language which upon its face has a natural tendency to injure a man's reputation, either generally or with respect to his occupation." From the above what is deducible is that libel is a defamatory statement or representation, communicated, transmitted or conveyed to a person(s) other than the defamed through any medium of expression may it be in the form of printing, writing, image or other form comprehensible through sight or touch. No libel is committed if it was addressed to the person concerned only. In the instant case, as it could be seen from the pleadings that, a communication was addressed by the defendant to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi, containing allegations against the plaintiffs. In turn Chamber forwarded the letter to the plaintiffs for their comments. The plaintiffs through reply dated 8-1-1998 refuted the allegations contained in the said letter. Very fact that communication containing adverse comments against the plaintiffs and was made to a representative Trade Body, itself is sufficient to establish that a libelous act was committed. Once it is established that a wrong has been committed, injury is presumed howsoever trivial it may be. Libel is actionable per se wrongdoer is exposed to its consequences, it may be in the form of special damages and/or 'general 'damages. Special damages means material and actual loss capable of assessment in terms of money, resulting as a natural or proximate consequences of wrongful act, like loss of business etc. Special damages must not only be pleaded with certainty and detail but are also required to be proved at the trial. General damage is loss or injury sustained or causes as a direct or proximate consequence of a wrongful act not capable of exact assessment in terms of money. Such loss or damages under law are presumed and implied like loss of goodwill, reputation and mental torture etc. At the very outset, it may be observed that the plaintiffs have claimed special damages in the sum of Rs.50 million but no detail of such damages have been given. Where a person claims special damages then it is incumbent by him, as discussed above, to show as to under which head of account and how such damages have been sustained. Plaintiffs have not given any detail of loss or damage caused to them nor any evidence was produced to show that the quantum of such damages is a natural or direct consequence of such libel: Therefore, as far as claim for special damages is concerned, same is disallowed. However, every person is entitled to protect his goodwill, image, reputation and status in society. Goodwill, image, reputation and status acquires significant importance in commercial world, any bad word may ruin a person's business. In the instant case, personal insinuation as to financial credibility of the defendant has been made. In the case reported as PLD 1970 Kar. 315 (supra), it was held that general damages is not amenable to any legal standard of measurement. It was further hold that failure of plaintiff to give any evidence of his reputation or status is relevant to the question of quantum of damages. In view of the foregoing in order to assess a fair quantum of general damages, Court must keep in view, the nature of publication/communication, to whom it is made, quantum, circulation, range, extent and medium of publication/communication, status and reputation of a person in the community or society. Impact of libel on the person targeted in such publication/communication. Each of said variable factor have its own impact on the assessment of injury, loss or damage cause to such person. Looking at the merits of the instant case, libelous communication containing the allegations of financial misconduct on the part of plaintiff was only addressed to Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Karachi. Such communication was not circulated amongst the general body of traders or businessmen, it was only forwarded by the Chambers to the plaintiff to clarify his position. Plaintiffs vindicated their position through a reply refuting the allegations contained in impugned defamatory communication. No further action was taken by the Karachi Chambers of Commerce against the plaintiff. There appears to be no repetition or circulation amongst other members or business community or social circle where the plaintiff No. 1 stated to move. Plaintiffs have not placed on record any material to show their respective reputation, status financial or otherwise in the trade, commercial, business or social circle. Since defendant chose not to defend the cause is the circumstance that goes against him to presume that he has no defence to offer. Looking at all the factors detailed above, while assessing injury or general damages to the goodwill, esteem, status, reputation of the plaintiffs, I would allow only Rs.1,000 as token general damages to the plaintiffs as against the claim of rupees fifty million. Suit stands decreed in terms set out above, with no orders as to costs. M.H./T-48/K Suit decreed accordingly.