Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12247
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ, A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
ANTONY P MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
BRANCH MANAGER – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL 47/2015
['SHEJI P ABRAHAM']
Forfeiture of renewal commission under Regulation 19 is contingent upon prior termination of agency due to fraud established in judicial proceedings.
Headnote:
Regulation - Termination of Agency - Life Insurance Corporation Act - Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - Sections 9, 10, 15, 16, 19 - The court held that forfeiture of renewal commission is permissible only when agency termination is due to fraud as established in judicial proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation, had his agency terminated for failing to meet business requirements. Subsequent to his termination, the corporation sought to forfeit his renewal commission citing later discovered fraud, which led to legal action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioner, determining that the agency was terminated for business failure, not fraud, thus the forfeiture of renewal commission under Regulation 19 was not justified. It also addressed the interpretation of regulatory provisions regarding fraud.
Issues: The key issues were whether the forfeiture of renewal commission could occur without a termination due to fraud, if fraud needed to be established judicially for forfeiture, and whether the proceedings for forfeiture complied with regulatory requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Regulation 19’s use of 'except for fraud' ties the forfeiture of commissions directly to termination based on fraud findings. A separate proceeding for forfeiture without prior fraud identification violates regulatory procedures.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal is allowed, and the order forfeiting renewal commission is set aside, requiring payment to the petitioner.
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. C.J.
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 h
