Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 91
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK BHUSHAN & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ.
Antony P. Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Regional Manager (Marketing), Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras & Others – Respondent
WA. No. 47 of 2015
Decided On : 09-02-2015
For the Appellant:Sheji P. Abraham, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - R3, S. Easwaran, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations 1972 - Meaning of - Fraud -Termination of Agency - When warranted - Termination or suspension of agent for certain lapses - Whether Corporation after considering the materials and after giving opportunity can come to the conclusion regarding the act of fraud committed by the agent and that can also form a basis for forfeiting the commission under Regulation 19 - challenged - Held, if the agent commits a fraud in carrying on his business with the Corporation or policy holders, the Corporation cannot initiate any proceeding for termination of agency on coming to know that the agent is working fraudulently. The Corporation has ample jurisdiction and Regulation 16 gives ample power to the Corporation to initiate proceeding for any lapse committed by the agent including his fraudulent act or act of forgery for terminating his appointment. We thus are of the view that the word "fraud" used in Reg.19 does not only refer to fraud as found in the judicial proceeding under Reg.15(c) but shall also include the action of the Corporation terminating the agency on any fraudulent act of the agent. Thus in proceeding under Reg.16(1) also the Corporation after considering the materials and after giving opportunity can come to the conclusion regarding the act of fraud committed by the agent and that can also form a basis for forfeiting the commission under Reg.19 - Termination of appointment of agent is an event which is to happen for giving an occasion for payment of commission on the business already secured by the agent. Without there being termination of agency, the question of payment on the business already secured does not arise. The words "except for fraud" had to confine and relate to termination of agency - Provision clearly indicate that termination of agency is made but before the published day the link between the words "except for fraud" and termination is clearly established and referred to. The same object is found delineated in Reg.19(1). Thus the above reinforces our above view that forfeiture of commission can be ordered only when termination of agency is made on the ground of fraud
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. C.J.
1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02.09.2014 of the learned Single Judge by which judgment Writ Petition No.10197 of 2005 filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner") has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Appeal are: Petitioner was appointed as agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of the India (for short, "the Corporation") vide order dated 01.11.1976. Petitioner's appointment was to be governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (for short, "the Regulations"). Exercising power under Regulation 13 of the Regulations by order dated 09.11.1990 petitioner's agency was terminated on the ground that petitioner did not complete the business guarantee required from him under Regulation 9 of the Regulations during the agency year ending 31.10.1990. Petitioner submitted representation on 12.12.1990 and 21.02.1991 for cancelling the order dated 09.11.1990. Petitioner stated that he has submitted 12 proposals in September and 1st week of October but the special reports were not submitted by the Development Officer. Petitioner submitted a representation on 04.09.1991 requesting for reinstatement. Letter dated 13.09.1991 was received by the petitioner from the Branch Manager referring to life policy given to one P.I.Issac which was revived on personal statement made by him dated 05.03.1990. Issac died on 11.03.1990. Although he was receiving medical treatment which was not disclosed in the personal statement, the personal statement was witnessed by the petitioner on 05.03.1990. On 23.09.1991 another letter was issued by the Senior Divisional Manager to the petitioner asking his explanation which was submitted by the petitioner on 30.10.1991. When the petitioner did not receive his commission for the last three months, a lawyer's notice dated 24.10.1994 was sent to the Branch Manager to give petitioner's commission for the past three months within 7 days failing which legal action was to be initiated. On 03.12.1994 a show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the Senior Divisional Manager with heading "disciplinary proceedings under the Regulations and in the matter of Antony P.Mathew who was working as life insurance Corporation agent in branch office Taliparamba." The show cause notice stated that petitioner has witnessed the personal statement of health of P.I. Issac on 05.03.1990, who was under treatment and died on 11.03.1990. Having regard to the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner it is proposed to impose penalty of forfeiture of future renewal commission payable to the petitioner exercising power under Regulation No.19(1) of the Regulations. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 14.12.1994 stating that since the policy holder having expressed his willingness to revive his policy, he helped to revive the policy on 05.03.1990 on which date premium was also paid. He has no role in the attestation of signature of P.I.Issac by V.T.Vijayan, Branch Manager. Reply further stated that since the petitioner has issued a legal notice on 24.10.1994 asking for payment of commission, as a counter-blast the show cause notice has been issued. An order dated 02.08.1995 was passed by the Senior Divisional Manager under Regulation 19(1) of the Regulations imposing penalty of forfeiture of future renewal commission payable to the petitioner. Petitioner filed O.P. No.18439 of 1995 in this Court challenging the order dated 09.11.1990 terminating the agency as well as the order dated 02.08.1995 forfeiting his future renewal commission (Exts.P1 and P14.). Writ Petition was decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 26.10.2004 quashing Ext.P14 and directing the respondents to take a fresh decision on the proposal of forfeiture of future renewal commission. In compliance of the order of this Court, the Senior Divisional Manager again passed an order on 14.01.2005 by which order it was
