1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---The plaintiff at the time of filing of present suit held the post of Chief of Human Resource Development in United Bank Limited. He worked in this position for several years. He also holds Masters Degree from the University of Durham, England and Masters Degree in Public Administration from the University of Southern California, U.S.A. The plaintiff had also held the post of Secretary and Executive Vice-President, Administration, of the Pakistan Banking Council for many years as well as the post of Company Secretary of United Bank Limited. On account of his academic qualifications and career experience, he claims to have acquired specialization and expertise in Human Resource Management.
2. ' The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No,1 who is editor and publisher of Sada-e-Bankaran, an Urdu language weekly newspaper, is in a habit of publishing provocative and incendiary news items and that he along with defendant No,2, who is printer of the weekly, have embarked upon a campaign of concerted and organized vilification of the plaintiff by publishing series of false and defamatory reports against the plaintiff and his family members. In this regard several reports were published in weekly's issues of 16-7-2001, 23-7-2001, 20-8-2001, 3-9-2001, 10-9-2001, 22-10- 2001 and 22-11-2001.
3. ' The contents of all the published reports in summarized form were to the following effect:--
(a) The plaintiff had shown undue favour to Mr. Ashraf Haider and Mr. Jauher Naqvi by extending illegal promotions to them on account of their involvement with the plaintiff.
(b) The plaintiff had been imported as Chief of Human Resource Development from Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and was receiving remuneration from both the banks.
(c) The plaintiff has illegally amassed property worth crores of rupees unjustly enriching him by obtaining the benefit of loans and other perquisites from UBL.
(d) As a result of the plaintiffs loyalty towards Mr. Zubyr Soomro, the ex-President of UBL, the current President of UBL was totally helpless before the plaintiff and is unable to function.
(e) The wife of the plaintiff was interfering in the affairs of UBL by pressurizing the plaintiff to appoint her close relative as Regional Operations Head, Karachi.
(f) The plaintiff had, through his manipulation and bad influence, become the half owner of UBL.
(g) The plaintiff has tarnished and blackened the name of the Head of Establishment Department, Mr. Mehboob Karim by having an audit conducted against him and has pressurized the Audit Chief to handpick a team of auditors so that the plaintiff is able to replace Mr. Mehmoob Karim with a nominee of his own choice.
(h) The plaintiff was deliberately manipulating and creating difficulties for the process of voluntary Separation Scheme and induction of new contractual employees.
(i) The plaintiff was deliberately creating hurdles in the payment of retirement dues to departing employees so that the affected employees would be forced to commence actions in the civil Courts and their eventual payments, when received, would be after a delay of many years.
(j) The plaintiff had been employed at UBL in breach of State Bank of Pakistan regulations and Ministry of Finance directives.
(k) The plaintiff was an accomplished flatterer and spy and was involved in covering up irregularities committed by the UBL administration of which he was a leader.
(1) Raja Maroof, the ex-auditor of UBL, was fully conversant with the alleged facts and has provided inside information to Defendant No, 1 .
(m) The plaintiff minor son had killed two persons while driving a car belonging to UBL but in the use of plaintiff.
4. ' As the plaintiff felt humiliated on account of publication of allegations made in the above referred news reports, he served legal notice dated 24-12-2001 upon the defendants, terming the allegations as false and part of campaign of abuse and defamation on their part. The plaintiff therefore called upon the defendants to publish unqualified apology and claimed damages for causing harm to his reputation and that of his family.
5. ' None of the defendants responded to the plaintiff's legal notice. On the contrary, in the issue of 21- 1-2002 the weekly further questioned the integrity of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed the present suit. In the suit the plaintiff termed all allegations made against him and his family members as baseless, calculated to harm his good professional name and ridicule him in the eyes of the public and banker at large. The plaintiff claimed damages to the tune of one hundred million rupees and sought permanent injunction against the defendants so that defamatory news reports are not published against him in future.
6. ' The defendants were served through publication. No defence was put in by any of them and the entire case of the plaintiff went unchallenged. On account of defendants' failure to file written statement, though time given, they were debarred from defending the suit, hence the suit was listed for final disposal. The plaintiff then in support of his case filed affidavit-in-ex parte proof.
7. ' There is no denying the fact that it is always beneficial for the society that wrongful acts of a public functionary or of a person entrusted with duties to perform for the benefit of public are brought to the notice of the public for scrutiny so that they could be exposed, prosecuted and punished. One of the most effective tools for doing this is by publicizing it in the newspapers and periodicals. It is for this reason that press is considered to be the fourth tier of the State. On account of such status, heavy responsibility lies upon every news reporter, journalist and publisher of a newspaper or periodicals to steer clear of prejudices and perversions and publish stories after due verification so A that only truth is exposed and nothing else. Any false story that is published in newspapers or periodicals is bound to humiliate and harm the reputation and goodwill of the person who is the target of such publication. Therefore it is the elementary duty of a journalist, a news reporter and a publisher to duly verify the story before- its publication and shall also hear the version of the person to whom the story relates. After gathering necessary information and analyzing the respective versions of the story, if he deems appropriate to publish the same then the story should be published but the conflicting version should also be given the same prominence in the report as the main story. It is only after such exercise that the matter is left for the public to form its opinion on the story. Public should not be made to form an opinion with regard to stories which have not been duly verified and without knowing the version of the person against whom the new report is directed publication of accusatory and defamatory news items and stories without necessary verification would not only be regarded as irresponsible professional conduct but if challenged in a Court of law has to be visited with monetary damages as well as restraint orders so that such a conduct is discouraged and not repeated again. Thus the person who is harmed by the publication is compensated, though it is clarified that monetary compensation cannot erase the scar left by any malicious campaign to humiliate a person and violate his dignity in the eyes of the public, his business circles, friends and relatives.
8. ' The conduct of defendant No,1, as an editor and publisher establishes the fact that while publishing the series of stories against the plaintiff, he was reckless and did not keep in mind the humiliation and harm that it caused to the plaintiff. He did not even bother to have plaintiff's views on the matter. All this leads to the assumption that it was a deliberate attempt to humiliate the plaintiff and ridicule him in the eyes of the public.
9. When unsubstantiated libellous material is written or published against a person to defame him in the eyes of his friends, relatives, business circles and public at large, then such acts cannot be allowed to go unpunished. No society can accept such a conduct. When an unsubstantiated and unverified allegation made against a person is published in a newspaper or a periodical, the malice and bad faith has to be presumed against those who are responsible for such publication.
10. A civilized society never allows a person, having malicious intent to disgrace and defame anyone with impunity. It is the birth right of every person that his or her dignity is not violated and Article 14 of the Constitution 'recognizes and protects such right. Therefore, whenever a cause with regard to hurt or humiliation caused by the imputations to one's character is brought before a civil Court, it is the bounded duty of the Court to examine the allegations and if found false or malicious or tainted with bad faith, then the defendant has to be visited with civil liability of compensating the plaintiff monetarily.
11. ' In the present case plaintiff has been humiliated, not once or twice but through a campaign spread over several publications. The allegations against the plaintiff are quite serious and were not denied by either of the defendants when legal notices dated 24-12-2001 was served upon them. In fact they chose not to contest the proceedings. Thus this Court is left with no other option but to presume that allegations made against the plaintiff were neither duly verified nor plaintiff's view-point was taken before their publication. All allegations against the plaintiff therefore have to be regarded as malicious and tainted with bad faith. In view of the above, I hold that by publishing false accusations in the weekly Sada-e-Bankaran the reputation of the plaintiff and his family has been tarnished in the eyes of the banking circles, the general public and their friends and relations.
12. The plaintiff has claimed damages to the extent of hundred Million Rupees. The basis of quantifying damages to the extent of hundred Million Rupees has neither been given in the plaint nor in the affidavit in ex parte proof,. However, in a case of defamation it is not necessary that exact amount of damages be determined through evidence. The plaintiff has to simply establish defamation and the quantum of damages would follow by applying the rule of thumb. In the case of Sharif v.
13. Nawab Din reported in PLD 1957 Lah. 283 Mr. Justice Kaikaus, as he then was, held as follows:- "If damages are to be assessed only if the exact amount is proved, no damages can ever be decreed. Damages have so many times to be awarded by the rule of thumb but the fact that the exact amount is not determinable can be no reason for dismissal of suit."
14. ' Applying the rule of thumb, the question still arises what should be the quantum of damages which a Court should award. One way of quantifying it is that it should be to an extent that a defendant must feel its financial pinch otherwise a rich man would defame and disgrace any person and in return would only be required to pay an amount as damages which for him is insignificant. Therefore, while determining the quantum of damages in defamation cases one of the considerations which should be kept in mind is that it should commensurate with the financial strength of the wrongdoer in addition to the consideration with regard to the position the person who has been wronged holds in the society. In the present case, on account of defendant's own failure to defend this suit, their financial standing has not come on record in order to determine the quantum of damages to be awarded against them keeping in mind wrongdoer's financial strength.
15. However, taking into account eight separate defamatory publications against an educated and well-placed person who holds position of responsibility in the society, and, applying the rule of thumb, I determine a sum of Rs,10,000,000 (Rupees Ten million) as damages recoverable jointly and severally against the defendants, which amount in my view would be sufficient to deter the defendants from repeating unsubstantiated defamatory allegations against the plaintiff in future and to certain extent compensate the plaintiff for the hurt and humiliation that he and his family has suffered. In addition to damages, the defendants are also restrained from publishing such news items against the plaintiff in future.
16. ' The suit damages is decreed in a sum of Rs,10,000,000 (Rupees Ten million) with costs.