This is said to be a test case to get a ruling on a point not covered by rulings so far. This is a petition originally filed by the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Limited, whose place has been taken now by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on nationalisation, for revising and setting aside the decree and judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in S.C.S. No. 420 of 1953, granting a decree for Rs. 385 alleged to be the percentage commission due to the plaintiff Krishnamurthi, an insurance agent from the petitioner in respect of the renewal of premia on policies effected through his agency between 21st April, 1944 and 14th December, 1950, under section 44(1)(b) of the Insurance Act.

The facts are briefly these: The plaintiff Krishnamurthi was an insurance agent under the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company for more than five years and less than ten years and ceased to be such agent on 14th December, 1950. According to him he had secured policies for Rs. 54,500 which were in force within two years before his ceasing to be agent. One policy for Rs. 5,000 out of the above policies lapsed for non-payment of premia on 21st May 1949, that is more than one year before he ceased to be agent but within two years before he ceased to be agent. In other words, this policy lapsed after this agent had received when he was in service, the percentage on the renewal premia for the previous year. The question for determination before the lower Court was whether under section 44(1)(b) of the Indian Insurance Act, as amended he could claim the 4 per cent. on the premia (on the policies in force on 14th December, 1949) allowed thereunder, though the policies in force then aggregated only to Rs. 49,500. Section 44(1)(b) of the Indian Insurance Act, as amended, runs as follows:

“Such agent has served the insurer continually and exclusively in respect of life insurance business for at least five years and the policies assuring a total sum of not less than Rs. 50,000 effected through him for the insurer were in force on a date one year before his ceasing to act as such agent, for the insurer and that the commission on renewal premiums due to him does not exceed 4 per cent. in any case.”

It may also be useful to extract section 44(1)(c) as amended, in this connection. It runs as follows:

“Such agent has served the insurer continually and exclusively for at least ten years, and after his ceasing to act as such agent he does not directly or indirectly solicit or procure insurance business for any other person.”

It will be noticed that section 44(1)(c) differs from section 44(1)(b) in three respects. Firstly, an insurance agent who has served exclusively for at least ten years is entitled to the percentage on the renewal premium, irrespective of whether or not policies assuring a total sum of not less than Rs. 50,000 were effected through him for the insurer. Secondly, he is entitled to such percentage on the renewal premium irrespective of the fact whether they were in force on a date one year before his ceasing to act as agent for the insurer. Thirdly, he is under a disability as against an insurance agent who had worked only between five years and ten years, in that he could not claim the percentage on the renewal premium, if he directly or indirectly solicited or procured insurance business for any other person after he ceased to be an insurance agent for the particular company. Of course, these provisions, even as amended, were enacted before the nationalisation of the insurance companies, and at a time when a former agent of one insurance company could work for a rival company and ruin the prospects of the former insurance company.

I cannot agree with Mr. Narasimhachari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that section 44(1)(c) contemplates persons considered to be retiring after a service of ten years. In no civilised country in the world does any person retire in less than 25 year