D.K.KAPUR - (1.) This Regular Second Appeal arises out of a suitinstituted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against ShriT.R. Dua for the recovery of car No. PNT-3913, or, alternatively forthe recovery of the sum of Rs. 8300.00. The defendant was an employeeof the Corporation and the car in question was given to him under'anagreement between him and the Corporation. A letter of resignationdated 12/05/1962 was submitted by the defendant to the Corporation which was accepted with effect from 12th August, 1962. Theagreement between the parties relating to the car was that an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 was advanced by the Life Insurance Corporation for thepurchase of the car on the basis of an. agreement akin to an hire-purchaseagreement. Instalments were to be deducted from the salary of thedefendant at the rate of Rs. 166.00 per month. The Corporation wasinitially to purchase the car but had to pay only three-fourths of theprice. Under the terms of the agreement, the Corporation was to permit the defendant to use the vehicle during the period he remained in the service of the Corporation. The vehicle was to be used only for thebusiness of the Corporation and the defendant was to pay for the petrol, the oil and other charges for the up-keep of the vehicle. Accordingto the agreement if there was a breach of its terms the Corporation wasentitled to terminate the agreement and to resume possession of thevehicle. When the total amount paid by the Corporation had beenrepaid by the defendant the vehicle was to be transferred to him.It was provided in clause 8 of the agreement (dated 22/10/1961 Exhibit P-14) that in case the defendant ceased to be in the employment of the Corporation for any reason, or died in the serviceof the Corporation, the Corporation would be entitled to the exclusivepossession of the vehicle and the defendant or his heirs would not beentitled to the payments made by the defendant in the Car Account, It was, however, provided that the defendant or his heirs as the casemay be, might within one month of the date when the Corporationgot this right to possession, pay to the Corporation the balance inthe Car Account, in which case the Corporation would transfer thevehicle to the defendant or his legal representatives. It was furtherprovided that if the balance was not paid within one month the Corporation would be entitled to sell the vehicle and out of the moneys received from the sale adjust the balance in the Car Account and paythe surplus (if any) to the defendant or his heirs.
(2.) The agreement itself is not atall ambiguous but the dispute between the parties is as to whether the defendant has actually resignedand ceased to be in the employment of the Corporation or hot. According to the defendant he submitted his resignation on 14/05/1962,but withdrew the same on 4/08/1962. On the other hand, according to the Corporation the resignation was accepted with effect from 12/08/1962 and the defendant became disentitled to revokehis resignation after its acceptance. The basic question on which thedecision of the suit therefore depends is whether the defendant continued to be in the employment of the Life Insurance Corporation after 12/08/1962 or not.
(3.) On this question, the trial court found that under Regulation 18(1)of the Life Insurance Corporation Staff Regulations, 1960, a notice, ofthree months had to be given before a Class I employee like the defendentcould terminate his services. The letter of resignation is dated 12/05/1962, but it was held that it was forwarded to the ZonalManager of the Corporation on 14/05/1962, and hence , the earliest date on which the notice period would terminate was found to be 14/08/1962. Before this date it was held that the defendant couldwithdraw his resignation, and had done so by the letter. ExhibitP-13, withdrawing the resignation which was delivered to the Corporation on 4/08/1962. The resignation had already been acceptedby the Zonal Manager on 9/07/1962 with effect from 12/08/1962. On this point, the trial court held that the acceptance of the resignation was unnecessary as the Corporation was not required to acceptthe resignation before the expiry of the notice period. The trial court,therefore, concluded that the defendant still remained in service. Fromthis summary of the decision on the main point by the trial court,it will be obvious that the basis of the decision was that the defendanthad given three months notice concerning his resignation but hadwithdrawn the same before the expiry of three months. In view of thisdecision, the trial court dismissed the Corporation's suit.;