Delhi District Court
Rajesh Chaudhary vs Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co Ltd on 30 April, 2024
Rajesh Chaudhary
vs
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA:
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRENT CONTROLLER
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CS No.1101/17
DLND030016622017
Rajesh Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Bhushan Chaudhary,
R/o B69, 2nd Floor, Gali No. 1,
Shashi Garden, Mayur Vihar Phase I,
New Delhi 110091 ....Plaintiff
Versus
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through Its Director/ Managar HR
O/o 4th Floor, Vijay Building,
17, Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place,
New Delhi 110001
....Defendant
CS No. 1101/17 Page 1 of 20
Rajesh Chaudhary
vs
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 17.08.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment : 27.04.2024
Date of Decision : 30.04.2024
Final Decision : Suit Partly Decreed
( Suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and recovery of damages)
1. This is a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and for recovery of salary and damages against the defendant filed by the plaintiff alongwith the pendente lite and future interest.
2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as Senior Corporate Agency Manager by the defendant vide appointment letter dated 13.08.2013 and on 02.05.2017 the plaintiff resigned from the defendant's company and gave one month notice to the defendant as per the appointment letter. It is submitted in the plaint that the plaintiff worked in the notice period till 08.05.2017, after which he was stopped from working and not allowed to enter the office premises on 11.05.2017 and thereafter on 30.05.2017, he received a mail issued by the defendant leveling certain allegations against him and thus terminating his services from the defendant company. It is averred by the plaintiff that the said act of termination CS No. 1101/17 Page 2 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
of the plaintiff by the defendant was nothing but a result of anger and frustration in order to usurp the plaintiff's salary and other dues since plaintiff had already resigned and was serving the notice period. In these circumstances, it is averred by the plaintiff that no experience certificate / relieving letter has been issued by the defendant to the plaintiff due to which plaintiff was unable to get a new job and in the absence of experience certificate / relieving letter, plaintiff suffered great financial loss/hardships and it caused mental agony and therefore, the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to get damages from the defendant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/ for the same besides the salary of Rs.33,514/ for the notice period. On 24.06.2017, plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant through his counsel, however, no relief was given to him by the defendant, hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Decree of Mandatory injunction to issue relieving letter along with experience certificate;
(b) Decree for recovery of Rs.33,514/ with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 1 June 2017 till date amount is paid to the plaintiff on account of one month's salary; &
(c) Decree of damages of Rs.2,00,000/ on account of compensation / damages.CS No. 1101/17 Page 3 of 20
Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. Upon service of the summons, defendant appeared and filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is mentioned in the written statement (WS) of the defendant, that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the court and the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit and so the defendant has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement (WS) of the defendant denying the preliminary objections and other averments as contained in the written statement (WS). Averments as contained in the plaint were once again reiterated by way of the replication.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 12.03.2018:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to issue relieving letter alongwith the experience certificate to the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.33,514/ alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum payable on CS No. 1101/17 Page 4 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
01.06.2017 till realization? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages of Rs.2,00,000/ on account of compensation? OPP
4. Whether the present suit is under valued for the purposes of court fee? OPD
5. Whether the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit? OPD
6. Relief.
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW1 Rajesh Chaudhary relied upon certain documents:
Sr. No. Documents Exhibits.
1 Copy of notice dated 20.10.2018 under Ex. PW1/1
Order 12 Rule 8 CPC with original postal (colly)
receipt, consignee copy of original
consignment note and computerized
tracking report
2 Copy of appointment letter alongwith the Ex. PW1/2
copies of CTC dated 13.08.2016
3 Copy of computer out put of resignation Ex. PW1/3
letter dated 02.05.2017 with one month's prior notice in advance.
CS No. 1101/17 Page 5 of 20Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
4 Copy of pay slip for the month of April, Ex. PW1/4 2017 5 Copy of computer output of attendance Ex. PW1/5 record 6 Copy of emails dated 30.05.2017 received Ex. PW1/6 by the plaintiff alongwith email dated 05.06.2017 sent by the plaintiff and its reply from Ms. Reema Harsh 7 Copy of legal notice dated 24.06.2017 Ex. PW1/7 8 Original reply of defendant to notice dated Ex. PW1/8 24.06.2017 9 Certificate of appreciation Ex.PW1/9 10 Copy of electronic ticket dated 20.12.2016 Ex. PW1/10
7. Thereafter, plaintiff chose not to examine any other witness and closed his evidence on 21.01.2020 and the matter was listed for DE.
8. In defence evidence, the defendant examined DW1 Sh.
Kunal Arora by tendering his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.DW1/A. DW1 relied upon certain documents:
Sr. Documents Exhibits
No.
1 Appointment letter of the plaintiff DW1/1
2 Copy of malpractice matrix DW1/2
3 Copy of termination letter dated 08.05.2017 DW1/3
CS No. 1101/17 Page 6 of 20
Rajesh Chaudhary
vs
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
4 Copy of email letter dated 30.05.2017 DW1/5
5 Copy of email dated 05.06.2017 DW1/6
6 Reply of legal notice dated 24.06.2017 vide DW1/8
letter dated 02.08.2017
7 Certificate u/s 65B IEA DW1/10
8 Authority letter DW1/11
9. DW2 Sh. Phaneendar B. N. proved the report no. 17758 of his office record which was issued to defendant company on 19.04.2017 as Ex.DW2/1.
10. Thereafter, defendant closed his evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were led by the both parties. I have heard them at length and have perused the record carefully.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
11. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon certain judgments: (i) Sanjay Jain vs National Aviation Company of India Ltd. (2019) 14 Supreme Court Cases 492; (ii) Shafhi Mohammad vs State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2018 Supreme Court 714; (iii) Koduri Krishnarao vs State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 Andhra CS No. 1101/17 Page 7 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Pradesh 249 [V 49 C 67] to support his case.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment in Naresh Kumar vs Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors. CS (OS) No. 393/2010 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court made the following observations:
(i) A contract of private employment is not similar to the public employment and in such private employment there is no scope of applicability of the principles of administrative law/ public law.
(ii) A contract of employment which provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of the employment contract. An employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining period of services till the date of his superannuation.
(iii) As per the provision of Section 14 (1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract which is determinable in nature cannot be specified enforced. Since the service CS No. 1101/17 Page 8 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
contract in the present case is determinable by one month's notice there does not arise the question of giving of any reliefs which tantamount to enforcement of a determinable contract. As per Section 14 (1) (b), a contract of personal service cannot be enforced when the employer is not the Government or "State" as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Section 14 (1) of the Specific Relief Act states as follows: The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:-- (a) a contract for the nonperformance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief; (b) a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties, or otherwise from its nature is such, that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; (c) a contract which is in its nature determinable; (d) a contract the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise.
Section 73 Contract Act pertains to compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.--When a CS No. 1101/17 Page 9 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.--When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.
COURT OBSERVATIONS:
12. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. This court after going through the above make the following observations:
(a) It is the case of the plaintiff that he resigned from the CS No. 1101/17 Page 10 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
post of Sr. Cooperating Agency Manager on 02.05.2017 and as per terms and conditions of the appointment letter he is entitled to one month salary for the notice period served by him and he is also entitled for damages due to non issuance of experience certificate/ relieving letter by the defendant. The plaintiff admits that he worked in the office of the defendant till 08.05.2017 and thereafter, when he tried to come to office on Monday i.e. 11.05.2017 he was not allowed to enter into the office premises by the defendant.
(b) It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant as Sr. Corporate Agency Manager and he was indulging in unauthorized and unwarranted acts of impersonation and misselling of the policy as a result of which the services of the plaintiff were terminated by the defendant, thereby disentitling the plaintiff from any relief as sought by him.
(c) Both the plaintiff as well as the defendant have placed their reliance on the appointment letter of the plaintiff dated 13.08.2013.
(d) As per clause 17 of the abovesaid appointment letter, it was specified that:
CS No. 1101/17 Page 11 of 20Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
"This engagement may be terminated by either party by giving to the other, at any time, notice of thirty days in writing or by paying wages/ compensation for fifteen days in lieu of notice".
As per clause 18 it was enumerated that "notwithstanding anything contained herein, your employment with the company shall stand terminated forthwith without any notice or payment in lieu of notice or account of" :
(a) breach of any laws, rules and regulation;
(b) breach of any company policy;
(c) subpar performance; and
(d) any act regarded as prejudicial to the interest of the company.
Therefore, as per clause 18 of the terms and conditions, the employer had the option to terminate the employment of the plaintiff with the company without any notice on account of breach of any laws, rules and regulations or breach of any company policy or for subpar performance or for any act regarded as prejudicial to the interest of the company.
(e) The defendant has argued that the plaintiff has not challenged his termination by the defendant and has not mentioned CS No. 1101/17 Page 12 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
anything in this regard in this plaint or replication or evidence by way of affidavit, therefore, it has to be assumed that the termination of the plaintiff was proper. Furthermore, the defendant has argued that they were receiving complaints from the customer against the plaintiff since January, 2017 alleging misrepresentation of policy terms and consequently internal investigation was initiated by the company's Risk Management and Control Unit (RMCU) which started an inquiry in respect of the policies sold by the plaintiff and the RMCU also sent an email to the plaintiff in the month of 2017 asking for certain clarifications after which the defendant company conducted the voice sample test of the plaintiff through PCVC (Persian Consonant Vowel Combination) and it was found by forensic experts that the PCVC call was not matching with the customer but with the plaintiff and so after the investigation carried out by RCMU team and findings of PCVC, the defendant company came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was involved in the misrepresentation and misselling of the policy to the customer. It is further argued by the defendant that the plaintiff was informed the reasons of his termination by the defendant company vide various e mails dated 08.05.2017, 30.05.2017, 05.06.2017 and 30.03.2018.
As regards issue no. 4 and 5:
CS No. 1101/17 Page 13 of 20Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Issue no. 4: Whether the present suit is under valued for the purposes of court fee? OPD Issue no. 5: Whether the present court does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit? OPD
(f) Issue no. 4 and 5 were already decided by the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 07.05.2018.
The Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 07.05.2018 observed that the total amount claimed in the present suit is for Rs.2,33,514/ and the suit is to be valued at this amount for the purpose of court fee. The court held that the present suit in undervalued, however, the plaintiff was allowed to rectify this defect and deposit the requisite deficient court fee which was done by the plaintiff.
As far as issue no. 5 is concerned, the Ld. Predecessor Court held that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit since a part of the cause of the action took place in Delhi where the defendant's company has its branch office and so this issue was decided in the favour of the plaintiff.
As regards issue no. 1:
Issue no. 1:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant CS No. 1101/17 Page 14 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
to issue relieving letter alongwith the experience certificate to the plaintiff? OPP
(g) Issue no. 1 has already been decided in the favour of plaintiff by the Ld. ADJ03, PHC vide order dated 08.10.2018 wherein the employer was directed in the said order to issue letter in the form of experience certificate to the employee/ plaintiff Rajesh Chaudhary. During the course of trial and after passing of the abovesaid order, the plaintiff had informed this court on 07.12.2018 that he has received the experience letter from the defendant and so in view of the submissions of the plaintiff and since he has already received the experience certificate/ relieving letter, issue no. 1 has become infructuous.
As regards issue no. 2 and 3: Issue no. 2:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.33,514/ alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum payable on 01.06.2017 till realization? OPP Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages of Rs.2,00,000/ on account of compensation? OPP
(h) The plaintiff has argued that he was intentionally not given the experience/ relieving letter by the defendant as a result of which he suffered great financial hardships and mental agony and so CS No. 1101/17 Page 15 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
he is entitled to get the damages from the defendant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/ on account of financial loss due to him being unemployed because of non issuance of experience certificate/ reliving letter by the defendant.
The defendant has argued that the plaintiff was terminated from the services by the defendant as he was found indulging in unauthorized and unwarranted acts of impersonation and misselling of the policy, thereby disentitling the plaintiff from any relief as sought by him and for this reason as per the terms and conditions the plaintiff was not obligated to issue the experience certificate / relieving letter to the plaintiff. It is further argued by the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any damages as the defendant acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. The defendant has also relied upon the judgment in Naresh Kumar vs Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors. CS (OS) No. 393/2010 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that: "if there is an illegal termination, and the remedy as per law is the three months' salary in lieu of the period of notice, then, for such aspect there cannot be a claim in law with respect to damages on the ground of mental agony and distress inasmuch as by law the monetary benefits are limited to the notice period of termination".
CS No. 1101/17 Page 16 of 20Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
(i) In light of the abovesaid judgment and going through the submissions of both the sides, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages on account of financial hardships/ mental agony as the defendant acted as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and the plaintiff has not been to show that he is entitled to the damages for the financial loss/ mental agony due to non issuance of experience certificate. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff did not resign on 02.05.2017 on account of some family problems but his services were terminated by the defendant in accordance with Clause 18 (b) of the terms and conditions of the appointment dated 13.08.2018, Clause A10 and F 7 of Malpractice Matrix and Clause 4 (b) of the Separation Policy because of his indulging in unauthorized and unwarranted acts of impersonation and misselling of the policy to the customers and so the defendant company is not obligated to issue the experience certificate to the plaintiff and so he is not entitled to any damages/ salary as claimed by him.
(j) During cross examination of the plaintiff admitted that the Risk Management and Control Unit (RMCU) of the defendant company sent him an email in March, 2017 asking for certain clarifications in respect of selling of the policy. In his cross CS No. 1101/17 Page 17 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
examination, the plaintiff also admitted receiving the emails from the defendant company w.e.f 29.05.2017 to 05.06.2017 (PW1/6 colly).
Therefore, from the crossexamination of PW1 Rajesh Chaudhary, it is clear that he was aware of the investigation carried out by RMCU for a policy dealt by him and an email in this regard for clarification was also sent by RMCU to him. Moreover from the terms and conditions of the appointment, it is clear that the appointment/ employment of the plaintiff was determinable in nature and the employer had the option to terminate the services of the plaintiff if he was found guilty of any wrong doing or found to be acting adversely to the interest of the defendant company.
(k) This court after going through the material on record and the depositions of the witnesses is of the view that the defendant has been able to prove that the actions of the plaintiff were under scrutiny/ investigation by RMCU team and the plaintiff was aware of these investigations as early as March 2017 and after conclusion of the inquiry / investigation, the defendant came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was indulging in unauthorized and unwarranted acts of impersonation and misselling of the policy to the customers and so terminated the service of the plaintiff as per the terms and conditions CS No. 1101/17 Page 18 of 20 Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
of the appointment and so they were not obligated to issue the experience certificate to the plaintiff.
(l) Also the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in above mentioned case has held that case of private employment when the parties are covered by a contractual clause and employment is determinable in nature then the employee is not entitled to any damages even in case of illegal termination. The present case is not where the plaintiff was illegally terminated by the defendant and so the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages especially in light of the findings in the present case. Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. As far as issue no. 2 is concerned, this court is of the view that the plaintiff has himself admitted that he worked for the defendant till 08.05.2017 after which he was stopped from entering the office premises since he was found indulging in unauthorized and unwarranted acts of impersonation and misselling of the policy. Since the plaintiff worked in the company of the defendant till 08.05.2017, he is entitled to 08 days salary for the work done by him and not for one month salary as is claimed by the plaintiff. Issue no. 2 is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS No. 1101/17 Page 19 of 20Rajesh Chaudhary vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
RELIEF.
13. As a consequence to my findings on the above mentioned issues, this court decide the issue no. 2 partly in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant is directed to release 08 days salary to the plaintiff for the work done by him as per his salary in May, 2017 and issue no. 1 has already been granted vide order dated 08.10.2018 of Ld. ADJ03 and so the same has become infructuous and issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff as no order for damages / compensation has been granted to the plaintiff.
14. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV MEHTA
MEHTA Date:
2024.05.09
04:30:51 +0530
Announced in the open court [VAIBHAV MEHTA]
on 30.04.2024 SCJCUMRC
New Delhi Distt, PHC, Delhi
CS No. 1101/17 Page 20 of 20