PARTAP SINGH NARWAL Vs. HARYANA STATE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Panchkula, whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") had filed a suit for recovery by way of damages for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss suffered by him due to non-sanctioning of vehicle loan to him by the defendants (respondents herein). The plaintiff was an employee of the defendants-Bank and he retired from his service on 30.06.2013. At the time of his retirement, he was working as a Manager in the Head Office of the defendants-Bank at Panchkula. He had applied to the defendants-Bank for a car loan of Rs. 4 lakhs vide his loan application dated 10.07.2010, for the purchase of a second hand 'i-10' car bearing registration No. CH04-J-2311. Along with the loan application, he (plaintiff) had submitted requisite documents i.e. agreement to sell dated 24.06.2010, affidavit and photostat copy of registration certificate of the said car. The seller of said car was Shri Arvind Kakkar, resident of House No. 340, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh. For the purchase of said car, the plaintiff had paid an earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- to his vendor Arvind Kakkar and the balance sale consideration was required to be paid on or before 15.08.2010. As per said 'agreement' dated 24.06.2010, if the seller backs out from the deal, he shall pay double the earnest money to the purchaser. Similarly, if the purchaser refuses to purchase the car, the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- paid by him to the seller shall be liable to be forfeited. Though the plaintiff had applied for a car loan on 10.07.2010, but vide letter dated 20.09.2010, the defendants-Bank communicated to the plaintiff that the receipt of earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- was not signed by the seller. Therefore, the plaintiff was advised to get the receipt signed from the seller Shri Arvind Kakkar. Accordingly, the plaintiff got the receipt signed from the seller and resubmitted the papers to the defendants-Bank, but despite submission of all the requisite documents by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to sanction the car loan to the plaintiff. Since the receipt of earnest money was signed by the seller on 28.09.2010, the date for payment of balance sale consideration was extended upto 31.10.2010. The plaintiff requested the defendants many a times to sanction the loan and to release him the loan amount, but it was never sanctioned and released. Therefore, Arvind Kakkar, with whom agreement to sell was executed, forfeited the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- vide letter dated 01.11.2010. Hence, the present suit was filed.

(3.) On notice, defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a joint written statement, taking various objections including concealment of facts. Though it was admitted that the plaintiff had applied for a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs for purchase of a second hand car vide his application dated 10.07.2010, but as his agreement to sell dated 24.06.2010 was not signed and therefore was incomplete, the defendants returned the original documents to the plaintiff on 20.09.2010 asking him (plaintiff) to re-submit the agreement after getting it signed from the party i.e. seller, who had agreed to sell his old car to the plaintiff. The plaintiff re-submitted the agreement on 28.09.2010, but it was incomplete. On scrutiny, the defendants noticed that the receipt of earnest money was signed by one Arvind Kakkar in the date of '28.09.2010', but as per the first page of agreement to sell, the payment was made on 24.06.2010. Therefore, on submission of incomplete agreement, different dates on agreement to sell and receipt of earnest money had created doubts in the mind of defendants-Bank and the same was accordingly brought to the notice of plaintiff, but he did not complete the required formalities. However, he (plaintiff) applied for a fresh loan of Rs. 3 lakhs for the purchase of a new 'Alto' car vide his fresh loan application dated 09.06.2011. Along with the application, the plaintiff also filed a copy of invoice dated 08.06.2011 of M/s. Berkley Automobiles Limited. His loan application was proceeded and a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of plaintiff by the defendants vide order dated 16.06.2011. The said order of sanction was valid for three months i.e. upto 16.09.2011. But the plaintiff on the last date of its validity i.e. on 16.09.2011, applied for extension of time for a further period of three months, which was considered and extended by the defendants. In this manner, the defendants released loan of Rs. 3 lakhs in favour of M/s. Berkley Automobiles Limited for the purchase of a new Alto car.