The judgment established that an insurer cannot be held responsible for the misconduct or nonfeasance of its agent, as per the Agent's Regulations, 1972, and legal precedent.

ORDER

Mr. A.K. Bose, Presiding Member—Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.10.1998, passed by the learned DCDRE, Kanpur Dehat in complaint case No. 26 of 1996, the appellant Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and, therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable financial loss.

2. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Shri Gyanendra Prakash Katiyar filled up a proposal for Life Insurance bearing Form No. 311-23-B on 24.3.1993 for a sum assured Rs. 1,00,000.00 only and had paid a sum of Rs. 8,071.00 in cash to Shri Ram Bharat Shukla, Agent, LIC towards payment of the first premium. Subsequently, it was brought to his notice that the Agent had failed to deposit the amount in the account of LIC, upon which he was contacted. He assured the respondent/complainant that he would deposit the premium at the earliest. Thereafter, he deposited a cheque of Rs. 8,071.00 in the account of LIC and consequently, Policy Bond No. 230254613 was issued subject to collection of the amount mentioned the aforesaid cheque. However, the Banker dishonoured the cheque. Consequently, the Policy Bond was cancelled and the respondent/complainant Shri Gyanendra Prakash Katiyar was informed accordingly. Feeling aggrieved by this deficiency in service and gross remiss on the part of the Agent of LIC, complaint case No. 26 of 1996 was preferred before the learned DCDRF, Kanpur Dehat for redressal of his grievances. It was submitted that there was a Master-Servant relationship between LIC and Shri Ram Bharat Shukla, Agent and therefore, the LIC was responsible for the misconduct committed by its Agent. The Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the LIC to refund the entire amount of first premium of Rs. 8,421.00 (Rs. 350.00 paid on 24.3.1993 and Rs. 8,071.00 paid on 30.10.1993) with 12% interest p.a. It also directed the appellant LIC to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 as compensation. The Forum, however, gave liberty to the appellant LIC to recover the aforesaid amount from its Agent Shri Ram Bharat Shukla in accordance with law. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. V.S. Bisaria and have given due consideration on all aspects of the matter. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Sanjai Verma was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 22.2.2016 and, thereafter, on 31.3.2016. Since the appeal was pending for more than 18 years for disposal, therefore, we deemed it appropriate to dispose of the appeal on merit.

4. Admittedly, Shri Ram Bharat Shukla was working as Agent of LIC at tire time the proposal form was filled on 30.10.1993. The respondent/complainant submitted that he paid the first premium of Rs. 8,071.00 + 350.00 totalling to Rs. 8,421.00 to Shri Shukla towards payment of the first premium. Admittedly, he did not deposit the amount. Consequently, he was contacted by the respondent/complainant, upon which, he was assured that the amount will be deposited shortly. There is no dispute that a cheque of Rs. 8,071.00 was subsequently deposited by the Agent and the Policy Bond No. 230254613 was issued subject to collection of the amount mentioned in the cheque. The cheque was, however, dishonoured by the Banker and, therefore, the Policy was cancelled. There is no irregularity or illegality in this aspect of the matter. It was submitted in the complaint that Shri Ram Bharat Shukla acted as Agent of the LIC, therefore, the appellant LIC is answerable for the remisses committed by him. Shri Ram Bharat