MOOL CHAND GUPTA Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2006 passed by the learned trial court whereby the suit filed by the Appellant for recovery of Rs. 7.60 lacs was decreed in favour of the Appellant by only awarding damages of Rs. 5,000/-along with interest on the delayed payment.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the Appellant was working as a branch office manager in the Respondent bank and opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 'VRS' offered by the Respondent bank. That as per the said scheme the Appellant was to be relieved on 15.1.01 and all his retrial benefits were to be released within 45 days i.e on 1.3.01 but due to delay, the payment was only made on 20.3.01. In the meanwhile, the Appellant entered into a transaction for purchase of a plot of Rs. 7 lacs and paid an earnest money of Rs 2 lacs by borrowing from his friends and relatives and the remaining amount of Rs. 5 lacs was to be paid by 4.3.01, but due to the delay in the release of payment of the retrial dues, the earnest money was forfeited. Thereafter the Appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7.60 lacs which was decreed in favour of the Appellant for Rs. 5000 with costs alongwith interest. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Assailing the said judgment and decree, Ms. Latika Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the learned trial court failed to take into consideration the loss suffered by the Appellant due to his failure to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the seller of the property with whom the Appellant had entered into sale transaction anticipating the payment of retiral benefits within the specified time given by the Respondent-Bank under the v. Scheme. The contention of counsel for the Appellant was that the Appellant had paid the earnest amount of Rs. 2 lacs to the vendor of the property, but since the Appellant failed to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the vendor of the said property within the time agreed to between the parties, therefore, the earnest amount of Rs. 2 lacs paid by the Appellant was forfeited by the vendor of the property and this loss of Rs. 2 lacs can be easily attributed to the Respondent-Bank, as had the Respondent-Bank paid the said retrial benefits within the said period of 45 days in terms of the v. Scheme, then the Appellant would have been in a position to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the vendor of the said property within the agreed time.