JUDGMENT : THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA PRAYER: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant :- (a) to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as damages for loss of their reputation in the eye of public due to frivolous and malicious activities against them; (b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men or dealers or any other person claiming on their behalf from indulge in malicious and reckless allegations made in the public; (c) to direct the defendant to pay the cost of the suit. This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- [Rupees One Crore only] as damages for the loss of their reputation. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant and perused the materials available on record. The case of the plaintiff in brief:- 3. The plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act represented through its Assistant Manager; the defendant is the proprietorship concern by name 'Sree Ganesha Rig Service' represented through its Proprietor R.Selvakumar; the plaintiff is the manufacturer of engineering and agricultural machineries having its parent company in South Korea and they have started their operation in India in the year 2007; one of the dealers by name 'M/s.Marwell Compressors & Equipments India Pvt. Limited' in Tiruchengode is the defendant who had purchased the compressor from them on 25.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.34,52,036.20 and the said compressor was installed on 05.09.2013; the machine has been operated for nearly 2641.6 hours as on 12.05.2015 and it has been operated at various places in India and the plaintiff's company has been doing services on regular basis. 3.1. 3.1. Thereafter, it was complained by the defendant that the compressor stopped working but the main issue is lack of maintenance on the part of the defendant; even on 29.04.2015 due to the continuous complaints made by the defendant, the plaintiff was obliged to change the engine itself; however the defendant was not satisfied and he went on filing frivolous complaints and has been provoking the plaintiff in various manner; the defendant had organized demonstrations before the dealer's office of the plaintiff on 02.06.2015 by mobilizing the members of local Tiruchengode Rig Owners Association and abused the plaintiff by putting up banners in public place to defame the plaintiff's company and its activities. 3.2. The intention of the defendant is to tarnish the plaintiff's company in the eyes of general public and these kind of activities are being carried out by the defendant from the month of May 2015; the defendant had also issued public notice in the local daily newspaper by defaming the company; because of this the plaintiff had suffered heavy loss in terms of money and their reputation has also been affected; the plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 16.09.2015 calling upon the defendant to tender an unconditional public apology by giving advertisement in the local newspaper; the defendant received the legal notice and sent reply on 10.10.2015 by making unwanted and wild allegations against the plaintiff in which he also threatened the plaintiff that he would initiate proceedings before the Consumer Forum for deficiency in service and hence, the plaintiff has got no other alternative except to file the suit for damages in view of defamation committed by the defendant. Written submissions filed by the defendant in brief:- 4. The compressor supplied by the plaintiff was a defective one; at the time of purchase, the plaintiff's dealer assured repairing service within the warranty period at free of cost and the compressor service will also be attended by the plaintiff's service engineers once in two months; the compressor should run 5000 hours within the warranty period of two years; as on 12.05.2015 the compressor had been operated for nearly 2641.6 hours but the compressor had worked smoothly only for 2000 hours and thereafter it broke down for one reason or other; the plaintiff's service engineer managed to operate the compressor work for another 600 hours by making certain repairs on and off within the warranty period. 4.1. Thereafter the repairs occurred in the compressor cannot be rectified and it stopped running; after examining the compressor, the service engineers of local dealer of the plaintiff told that a rod and cog wheel of the compressor was of a substandard quality and so the cog wheel broke into pieces and the rod got cut down; on the advise of the plaintiff's dealer, the defendant handed over the compressor to the plaintiff's Tiruchengode dealer on 18.12.2014; the compressor was delivered after attending the alleged repairs on 20.01.2015; thereafter, the compressor's air-end became faulty and it was attended for atleast for 26 times as detailed in the written statement. 4.2. The whole diesel expenses for the services that has been done through the warranty period was borne by the defendant. However the plaintiff could not restore the compressor to running condition and the plaintiff failed to replace the same and hence the defendant took the matter to Tiruchengode Rig Owners Association; the Association representative negotiated the matter and the plaintiff once again assured that his Tiruchengode dealer will either carry out the repair works or replace the same; however the plaintiff's Tiruchengode dealer had refused the same and behaved arrogantly; he also threatened the defendant with dire consequences, even refused to return back the old compressor and hence the defendant was compelled to lodge a criminal complaint with Tiruchengode Rural Police Station. 4.3. During the enquiry with the police also, the plaintiff's Tiruchengode dealer had undertaken to return the old compressor or replace it with a new one, however it was not done; hence on 03.06.2015 the defendant along with the members of Velagoundampatty Rig Owners Association conducted a demonstration and procession and that was not with any mala fides or evil intention; thereafter on 26.06.2015 the plaintiff gave a public notice stating that they denied the allegations made against them; the defendant also made a public notice and exposed the deficiency of service given by the plaintiff. 4.4. 4.4. If the plaintiff incurred any loss, it is due to the substandard quality of their own products and the defendant cannot be held liable for the same; on the intimation given by the plaintiff, the defendant went to Coimbatore to get back his compressor on 29.06.2015 to his surprise it remained unrepaired; no proper explanation was given to the defendant when he questioned the plaintiff; the defendant had invested huge amount of Rs.34,52,036/- in purchasing the compressor apart from other investments he has made and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed and the suit should be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, on 30.06.2023, this Court has recast the following issues:- i. Whether the defendant had made allegations against the plaintiff company with malicious intention of defaming the plaintiff ? ii. Whether the defendant had held demonstration to defame the plaintiff in public ? iii. Whether the alleged acts or words uttered had brought down the reputation of the plaintiff in the eye of the public ? iv. Whether the plaintiff has proved that he had suffered damages ? v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages ? vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? vii. To what other reliefs ? 6. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and 16 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. On the side of the defendant, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and 3 documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. 7. vii. To what other reliefs ? 6. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and 16 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. On the side of the defendant, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and 3 documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant had purchased a compressor from the plaintiff's company on 25.07.2013, and the same was installed on 05.09.2013 and till 12.05.2015 the defendant had operated the machine for atleast 2641.6 hours; due to the failure on the part of the defendant to maintain the compressor in a proper manner, life of the machine is lost; despite the plaintiff has done their services to rectify the problems reported by the defendant, the defendant continued to make wild allegations against the plaintiff; he had also given a paper publication against the company and that lowered the reputation of the plaintiff's company; he also held dharna in front of the plaintiff's dealers office by carrying placards, posters and stopped the officials of the company with the help of Rig Owners Association; it was the defendant who purchased the machine and not the Rig Owners Association. 7.1. Despite the defendant was giving false news in the newspapers in order to spoil the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the public, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 16.09.2015 to the defendant and asked him to tender an unconditional apology and pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as damages. In the reply sent by the defendant, he had admitted all activities done by him. It is false on the part of the defendant to state that the compressor supplied by the plaintiff was of a substandard quality and only because of that he was compelled to carry out protest in a peaceful manner with the help of Rig Owners Association. 7.2. The defendant himself has admitted that the plaintiff's company had offered their services to the compressor in various places and rectified the repairs. Since the defendant’s action had affected the reputation of the plaintiff's company, the defendant is liable to pay damages and he should be restrained from making any damaging statement against the plaintiff. 8. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant had invested a sum of Rs.34,52,036/- towards the purchase of the compressor. Since the defendant’s action had affected the reputation of the plaintiff's company, the defendant is liable to pay damages and he should be restrained from making any damaging statement against the plaintiff. 8. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant had invested a sum of Rs.34,52,036/- towards the purchase of the compressor. At the time of purchase, the defendant's dealer assured that the repairs should be attended with free of cost within the warranty period. As on 12.05.2015, the compressor was operated only for 2641.6 hours. The compressor worked smoothly only upto 2000 hours and thereafter broke down for one reason or other. Since the compressor stopped suddenly the defendant could not carry out his projects. Even after the compressor was handed over to the plaintiff's service partners, they attended the repairs, the compressor can not be operated properly. Since the plaintiff failed to address the grievances of the defendant, he took the matter to Tiruchengode Rig Owners Association for holding talks with the plaintiff. 8.1. Though the plaintiff's dealer had initially agreed to replace the machine subsequently he refused and behaved arrogantly. Even he refused to return the compressor which was affected. This necessitated the defendant to lodge a false complaint. During the police enquiry also, the plaintiff's dealer had undertaken to return the old compressor and replace it with a new one but it was not done. The demonstration carried out by Rig Owners Association is without any mala fide intention. The plaintiff has not proved the loss sustained by him. Even if any loss is suffered by the defendant, it was because of their act of supplying defective machines to the customers. On 29.06.2015, the defendant went to Coimbatore to get back his compressor and even then it remains unrepaired. No proper explanation was given to the defendant and he was made to run from pillar to post. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed by him and the suit should be dismissed. Discussion:- 9. The fact that the defendant had purchased a compressor from the plaintiff's company on 25.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.34,52,036/- is not denied. The compressor was installed at the premises of the defendant on 05.09.2013. The warranty period agreed by the plaintiff was two years. As per the assurance given by the plaintiff, the machine would run atleast for 5000 hours. The compressor was installed at the premises of the defendant on 05.09.2013. The warranty period agreed by the plaintiff was two years. As per the assurance given by the plaintiff, the machine would run atleast for 5000 hours. The compressor had undergone 11 services during the period of two years even before the completion of 5000 running hours. During each service, a particular set of service is done and relevant entries are made in the free service coupon book. So as per the said free service coupon book, the plaintiff is entitled to get 11 services within a period of 24 months from the date of installation or 5000 hours whichever is earlier. 10. The allegation of the defendant is that as on 12.05.2015 he could run the compressor only for 2641.6 hours and the machine could run smoothly only for 2000 hours and it got struck thereafter. The plaintiff did not deny the fact that they had attended frequent services at the call of the defendant at various places. As per the terms of purchase, the plaintiff has got the obligation to do service or replacement during the warranty period and the services will be done by the plaintiff's authorised dealers. Through the compressor warranty, the company has given parts warranty. If the compressor is moved from the territory of the selling dealer to any other territory then the choice of designating any other authorised dealer will be the responsibility of the plaintiff. 11. Naturally the plaintiff would depute the dealer who is proximate to the location of the compressor. So from the component wise warranty it is seen that 5000 hours or two years warranty is assured for the component called Air end. The coupons were also attached in order to enable the customer to produce the equipment at regular intervals. For the reasons best known to the plaintiff, the defendant's compressor got struck several times. The plaintiff has not given any specific reasons as to why the compressor of the defendant failed even before the completion of 2 years or 5000 hours. The plaintiff has simply stated that the defendant has not taken the preventive maintenance of the machine and that had caused the failure. With such generalised statement it can not be presumed which component of the machine the defendant is supposed to change or maintain after a particular point of time at his own cost. The plaintiff has simply stated that the defendant has not taken the preventive maintenance of the machine and that had caused the failure. With such generalised statement it can not be presumed which component of the machine the defendant is supposed to change or maintain after a particular point of time at his own cost. No report in this regard is also seen to have been produced. 12. The grievance of the defendant is that the machine purchased by him after a huge investment did not run well and it often resulted in oil colour change and break down. The plaintiff has submitted that they had attended the services through their authorised dealers for more than 10 times within the warranty period. That would only show that there was some serious problem in the compressor which would require a responsible attention from the plaintiff. The defendant can not be blamed for the frequent break down that had occurred before the completion of the assured 5000 hours running, unless it is shown that some essential service beyond the free service was advised to the defendant in order to change or attend any specific part of the machine and that the defendant had omitted to do so. 13. Even according to the admission of the plaintiff the machine supplied by the plaintiff had resulted in frequent failures and the defendant had to approach the plaintiff frequently. It is not the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant had attended the service of the compressor elsewhere other than the plaintiff's dealer within the warranty period. The person who had invested a huge sum and purchased a compressor to be used for his various projects would believe that the compressor will run well atleast for 2 years or 5000 hours whichever is earlier. 14. Since the machine was under the warranty period and the free service coupons were issued to the defendant, he could have utilised only the services so given to him. Ex.P.6 service coupons would show that Ex.P.5 service was also attended by the plaintiff's dealer and not by the defendant on his own. The rest of the services could not be utilised by the defendant because the compressor itself stopped thereafter and that is the reason why the defendant had complained the plaintiff and others. 15. Ex.P.6 service coupons would show that Ex.P.5 service was also attended by the plaintiff's dealer and not by the defendant on his own. The rest of the services could not be utilised by the defendant because the compressor itself stopped thereafter and that is the reason why the defendant had complained the plaintiff and others. 15. As per Ex.P.6, the plaintiff's company has made a visit on 04.02.2015 which is marked as Ex.P.8. In the service coupons dated 04.02.2015 marked as Ex.P.6, it is stated that the customer has to take his next service on or before 28.04.2015 or at 4150 hours. Since the customer could not run the compressor until the said hours due to frequent break down of the machine. Or in other words the Compressor supplied to the defendant is not seen to be eligible to complete the minimal 5000 hours within the warranty period of 2 years 16. The plaintiff’s witness P.W.1 has stated that he is not well versed in technicalities of functioning of the compressor. Even in the proof affidavit submitted by the plaintiff, there is no denial as to the averments made in the written statement by the defendant. There is no quarrel on the point that the problems reported by the defendant on the compressor had occurred within a period of 2 years or before the completion of the assured minimum of 5000 hours. As per the evidence of D.W.1., he could run the machine only for 2641 hours and in fact the machine ran smoothly only for 2000 hours. 17. The learned counsel for the plaintiff had given a paper publication Ex.P.10, by stating that they had cancelled the warranty given to the defendant in view of his false statements. Neither P.W.1 nor the plaintiff's documents could offer any explanation as to why the defendant had lost the advantage of running his machine atleast for the assured minimum of 5000 hours within the warranty period. 18. The plaintiff can not blame the defendant that he did not maintain the machine properly. Because the maintenance liability lies with the plaintiff during the free service within the warranty period. Free service coupons were issued by the plaintiff by drawing clear tables about how and what services are needed to be done within 2 years or 5000 hours whichever is less. Because the maintenance liability lies with the plaintiff during the free service within the warranty period. Free service coupons were issued by the plaintiff by drawing clear tables about how and what services are needed to be done within 2 years or 5000 hours whichever is less. That means the machine should run uneventfully for atleast 2 years or 5000 hours whichever is earlier, if the machine is properly subjected to the free services given by the plaintiff's dealers at regular intervals and as per the tables of the free services seen in the coupon book. Even when the machine was operated outside the territory from which it was purchased and the compressor failed, the defendant has only informed the authorised service partners of the plaintiff to undertake the repairs and he did not venture to do the repair by himself through any other unauthorised person. However, the plaintiff could not resolve the issues that had crept in the machine frequently. 19. In fact, the defendant ought to have worked out his remedy by filing an appropriate complaint before the Consumer Forum or a suit for damages. He was all along knocking at the door of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not given any responsible answer or taken any remedial steps. Since the Rig Owners have got an association, the plaintiff has made a complaint to them. At some point of time he also held negotiations with the plaintiff's dealers. Though the plaintiff has stated that Rig Owners Association had held demonstration in front of their service office, they have not stated whether they had held any talks with the Rig Owners Association or attempted to resolve the issue amicably. 20. Since the plaintiff has failed to do his object oriented service to the satisfaction of his customer like the defendant and was indifferent to the concerns expressed by him, the defendant believed in collective power and approached the Rig Owners Association to resolve the issue by holding talks with the plaintiff. This is how the Rig Owner’s Association had come into picture. The allegation of lack of maintenance on the part of the defendant was not substantiated by the plaintiff. The tension continued because of the indifference shown by the plaintiff's company in addressing the grievances of the defendant though he approached them individually or through the Association. 21. This is how the Rig Owner’s Association had come into picture. The allegation of lack of maintenance on the part of the defendant was not substantiated by the plaintiff. The tension continued because of the indifference shown by the plaintiff's company in addressing the grievances of the defendant though he approached them individually or through the Association. 21. It might be even true that the defendant or the Rig Owners Association had reacted emotionally and held demonstration in front of the plaintiff's service dealers. But such reactions are without any valid reasons and out of any malicious intentions. The action of the Rig Owners Association in holding a dharna in front of the plaintiff's service dealers office can at the best be perceived as a frustrated reaction and not an malicious action. 22. Had the grievance of the defendant was addressed successfully, no one would have bothered either the plaintiff or his representatives. In fact the plaintiff had acted in a revengeful manner and he had given a publication in revoking the warranty given to the defendant. Such an unilateral revocation of warranty by giving public notice itself would show that the plaintiff had failed to face the problem directly. On the other hand, he precipitated the issue by not giving any proper explanation or not taking any remedial measure for the damage suffered by the defendant. 23. In fact the defendant has not given any paper publication as stated by the plaintiff to lower the reputation. From Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9, it is seen that it is the news about the Rig Owners Association which went in support of the defendant. The plaintiff cannot presume that those reports have been given only by the defendant. Even if such a report is given by the plaintiff, it is only about an act that had taken place and about which media had also covered. The plaintiff has not produced any written materials to show that the defendant had indulged in defaming the plaintiff and that had affected the reputation or loss of their business or lowered their image. As rightly pointed out by the defendant the plaintiff's goods did not meet out the standard declared by them. 24. The plaintiff has not produced any written materials to show that the defendant had indulged in defaming the plaintiff and that had affected the reputation or loss of their business or lowered their image. As rightly pointed out by the defendant the plaintiff's goods did not meet out the standard declared by them. 24. In order to prove a case for defamation, the plaintiff has to establish that (i) there is a defamatory statement, (ii) that the defamatory statement must be understood by the reasonable persons as something referring to the plaintiff, (iii) the defamatory statement should have been published and in that way which ought to have been communicated to some person other than the plaintiff himself and (iv) there must be proof of special damages. 25. So far as the defendant is concerned, he can raise his defence on the grounds that the matter published was true, or there was an absolute privilege or consent. 26. An action for personal defamation on the ground of malicious falsehood is different from slander of goods. Malicious False statements made either through written or through oral words with an intention to defame the plaintiff, knowing pretty well that the statements so made are false. 27. Slander of goods is with reference to the publication of the words containing malicious statement of the goods of the plaintiff due to which the plaintiff had suffered damages. In such cases, plaintiff has to establish that the defence statements are false and reckless and it had caused special damages to the plaintiff. The statements so made should be proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity. It has been held by various High Courts and Supreme Courts that the company can also maintain a suit for defamation, in case the goods of the company have been intentionally defamed with false statements. 28. The judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in Marico Limited Vs. Abhijeet Bhansali reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 60, is relevant to the subject of slander of goods. In the said judgment, it is held as under:- “LAW ON DISPARAGEMENT VIS-A-VIS DEFAMATION: 69. The Defendant has relied upon several publications and other similar literature with a view to justify the statements made by the Defendant and to express that the Defendant did not disparage the Plaintiffs PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL. In the said judgment, it is held as under:- “LAW ON DISPARAGEMENT VIS-A-VIS DEFAMATION: 69. The Defendant has relied upon several publications and other similar literature with a view to justify the statements made by the Defendant and to express that the Defendant did not disparage the Plaintiffs PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL. Before I proceed, it is necessary to consider the law governing disparagement of goods and the reliability of the literature produced by the Defendant at the interlocutory stage. In Hindustan Unilever v. Gujarat Co-operative (supra) the defendant therein, albeit to support a different argument than that raised by the Defendant herein, had sought to rely on the law of defamation in a suit for slander of goods and malicious prosecution. This Court observed that the legal requirements of a personal defamation case and that of malicious falsehood and slander of goods are distinct and different. The plaintiff therein had also relied upon the paragraphs from Halsbury's Laws of England (supra). The relevant paragraphs from the judgment are reproduced below: “43. It has rightly been pointed out by the Plaintiff that the legal requirements of a personal defamation case and that of malicious falsehood and slander of goods are distinct and different. An action for slander of goods will lie where the defendant falsely and maliciously publishes words concerning the plaintiffs goods and where the publication causes the plaintiff to suffer special damages. Paragraphs 274, 275, 277 at pages 137, 138 and 140 respectively of Halsburyss Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 28 are in this regard relevant and reproduced hereunder: “Page 137 Para 274 - “Malicious or Injurious falsehood. At common law an action will lie for written or oral falsehoods which are published maliciously and are calculated in the ordinary course of things to produce, and do produce, actual damage. Such an action is not one of libel or of slander, but an action for damage wilfully and intentionally done without lawful occasion or excuse. At common law special damage is always necessary, but this rule has been modified by statute. Page 138 para 275 - “Comparison with Defamation- Actions for malicious falsehood are in a category of their own and are quite distinct from actions for defamation. These actions are not concerned with injury to reputation. At common law special damage is always necessary, but this rule has been modified by statute. Page 138 para 275 - “Comparison with Defamation- Actions for malicious falsehood are in a category of their own and are quite distinct from actions for defamation. These actions are not concerned with injury to reputation. In an action for defamation, to establish cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that the words referred to him and bore a meaning defamatory of him. To establish his action in an action for slander of title or slander of goods or other malicious falsehood, the plaintiff must prove that the words were false, that they were published maliciously and unless covered by the statutory exceptions, that they caused special damage.” (emphasis supplied) Page 140 para 277 - “Slander of goods - An action for slander of goods will lie where the defendant falsely and maliciously publishes words of and concerning the plaintiffs goods and where the publication causes the plaintiff to suffer special damages.” 44. The entire contention of Defendant No. 1 that the present action is in the nature of defamation and as such it is mandatory for the Plaintiff to plead and prove that on viewing the Impugned TVCs the public would relate the same to the Plaintiff, is based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of proceedings fled by the Plaintiff. The Judgments relied upon by Defendant No. 1 are those relating to personal defamation of an individual or entity and not relating to slander of goods or malicious falsehood. The above extract from Halsburyss Law of England cited hereinabove clearly brings out this distinction. This has in fact been emphasised in another Judgment relied upon by Defendant No. 1 that is Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. Naga Limited ILR (2003) 1 Del 325 wherein it has been observed as under: “Clerk & Lindsell on Torts draws a distinction between malicious prosecution and defamation, in that “defamation protects the Plaintifss reputation, while malicious falsehood protects the Plaintifss interest in his property or trade”. In its chapter on Libel and Slander, American Jurisprudence, Second Edition Volume 50 declares that - “Generally, publication of any false and malicious statement which tends to disparage the quality, condition, or value of the property of another, and which causes him special injury or damage, is actionable…” 70. In its chapter on Libel and Slander, American Jurisprudence, Second Edition Volume 50 declares that - “Generally, publication of any false and malicious statement which tends to disparage the quality, condition, or value of the property of another, and which causes him special injury or damage, is actionable…” 70. Having clarified that a suit for defamation stands on a slightly different footing than a suit for slander of goods and malicious falsehood such as the present one, the scope of the law applicable to the present dispute may be ascertained. It can be observed that the criteria that the Plaintiff must establish to make out a case for slander of goods and malicious falsehood, and the defenses that are available to a defendant in such a suit are distinct from a suit for defamation. The judgments relied upon by the parties shall be viewed in this context. In order to make out a case for disparagement/slander of goods the Plaintiff must show the following: a) That the Defendants statements are false; b) That the said statements were made and published maliciously/recklessly, c) That the said statements caused special damages to the Plaintiff. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT MADE FALSE, MALICIOUS OR RECKLESS STATEMENTS? 71. The issue which needs to be examined is whether the Defendant is prima facie guilty of making false or malicious or reckless representations to his viewers qua the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL of the Plaintiff. In order to succeed, the Plaintiff must establish that the statements made in the impugned video were false to the knowledge of the Defendant or made with reckless disregard of the truth. There cannot be any doubt that the test of falsity or recklessness would be reliant upon the knowledge of the Defendant at the time of making the Impugned Video. INSTANCES OF APPARENT FALSEHOOD 72. In the description of the Impugned Video, the Defendant states that “Parachute coconut oil is one of the most sold and most consumed coconut oils in the country and has been in the market for a very long time. In this video, I break down all the tiny details about this product and bring the truth to you as it is”. In this video, I break down all the tiny details about this product and bring the truth to you as it is”. However, a perusal of the Impugned Video shows that save and except the colour of the Plaintiffs oil in the liquid and frozen forms, the Defendant has not mentioned or analysed any other details of the Plaintiffs product. Conversely, the Defendant has omitted details of the products used by him to compare with the Plaintiffs PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL”. 29. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was refunded the cost of the machine or given replacement after they came to know that there was some irreparable manufacturing defect was seen to be present in the machine. The defendant submitted that he did not have any malicious intention but he was aggrieved only due to the defects in the goods supplied by the plaintiff and that the machine it did not meet out the standards assured by the plaintiff. 30. The plaintiff should prove that the statements made with the knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, there should be a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity. In the case on hand, it is not proved that the defendant had serious doubt about the truth of the statements made by him, but still made it recklessly without any regard for truth. 31. In Tata Sons Limited Vs. Greenpeace International reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466 it is observed by the Delhi High Court that the suits claiming phenomenal and substantial damages, though the plaintiff is aware that he is not going to succeed, but only with an aim to prevent others from publishing the materials which damage or impair the plaintiff. So the facts proved before this court would only show that the plaintiff has the intention to file this case only as a preventive measure without having any material to show that the intention of the plaintiff is malicious. The defendant was compelled to seek help from his Association because the plaintiff did not have the Will to accept the defect in the goods supplied to him and to do proper redressal. Since the plaintiff had allowed the defendant to suffer loss, the actions of the defendant or the association can not be viewed as something with an intention to defame the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had allowed the defendant to suffer loss, the actions of the defendant or the association can not be viewed as something with an intention to defame the plaintiff. In view of the above discussion, the Issue Nos.1 to 5 are answered against the plaintiff. 32. If the defendant was aggrieved that the plaintiff had supplied a defective machine to him and hence he had suffered damage, he can only seek recourse by taking appropriate legal proceedings. The defendant or his Association need not have taken an issue that has to be addressed legally in an emotional manner of holding demonstration or raising slogans and embarrass the plaintiff, who is said to have got a large client base in India. Hence I feel that the plaintiff is entitled to get a relief of permanent Injunction as prayed and thus Issue No.6 is answered. 33. In the given circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is not entitled to any other reliefs. Thus Issue No.7 is answered. In the result, this suit is partly decreed in respect of the relief of Permanent Injunction and partly dismissed in respect of the relief of damages. No costs. 33. In the given circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is not entitled to any other reliefs. Thus Issue No.7 is answered. In the result, this suit is partly decreed in respect of the relief of Permanent Injunction and partly dismissed in respect of the relief of damages. No costs. Witnesses examined on the side of plaintiff:- P.W.1 D.Sudarsana List of documents marked on the side of plaintiff:- Ex.P1 Original Board Resolution dated 04.02.2020 Ex.P2 Office copy of the Invoice from the plaintiff to the defendant purchased the compressor dated 25.07.2013 Ex.P3 File copy of the pre-delivery inspection report by the plaintiff's dealer M/s.Marwell Compressors & Equipments India Pvt. Limited dated 26.07.2013 Ex.P4 File copy of the commissioning reports issued by the plaintiff's dealer JN Machineries P. Ltd. to the defendant dated 05.09.2013 and 06.09.2013 Ex.P5 Copy of the service report by the plaintiff's dealer M/s.Marwell Compressors & Equipments India Pvt. Limited dated 18.12.2014, 20.01.2015 & 29.04.2015 Ex.P6 Copy of the service coupons issued by the plaintiff's dealer M/s.Marwell Compressors & Equipments India Pvt. Limited dated 04.02.2015 Ex.P7 Copy of the service report by the plaintiff's dealer M/s.Marwell Compressors & Equipments India Pvt. Limited dated 04.02.2015 Ex.P8 Original of the Paper Publication in 'Dhina Thanthi' dated 03.06.2015 Ex.P9 Original of the Paper Publication in 'Dhinakaran' dated 03.06.2015 Ex.P10 Original of the Paper Publication in 'Dhinakaran' given by the plaintiff company dated 26.06.2015 Ex.P11 Original legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt dated 16.09.2015 Ex.P12 Original Acknowledgment Card Ex.P13 Original reply notice sent by the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff dated 10.10.2015 Ex.P14 Photocopy of the photos of the compressors and air-end Ex.P15 Original letter of authorization dated 17.02.2021 Ex.P16 Photocopy of the certificate of incorporation dated 29.03.2017 Witnesses examined on the side of plaintiff:- D.W.1 R.Selvakumar List of documents marked on the side of defendants:- Ex.D1 Original Warranty Book with respect to the compressor dated 05.09.2013 Ex.D2 Original invoice with respect to the compressor dated 25.07.2013 Ex.D3 Original C.S.R. dated 02.06.2015 with respect to the complaint given by the defendant against the plaintiff's dealer.