IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV WRIT APPEAL No. 3189 of 2025 LAXMI NARAYAN SHARMA Versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Ankur Mody – Advocate for the appellant.

Shri K.N.Gupta – Senior Advocate with Shri Rinku Shakya – Advocate for the respondents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on this 6^th day of February 2026)

Per: Justice Anand Pathak With consent heard finally.

2. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 2 (1) of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 seeking limited relief for payment of interest on the delayed payment of commission, which was granted after the order dt.06.05.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.1037/2005.

3. Learned Writ Court vide order dt.06.05.2024 passed in W.P.No.1037/2005, allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner thereby setting aside the order impugned therein dt.16.12.2004 with further direction to give the commission which has accrued to the petitioner.

4. For appreciating the controversy in better perspective, following list of dates and events, is important for consideration of facts of this case :-

DATE EVENTS Appellant was appointed as an Agent of LIC bearing agency code No.355-356.

10/12/94 Appellant was served with a notice that excess payment of commission is made to him qua policy No.200863388, 200863376 and 200863404. In the notice, it was disclosed that earlier on audit objection appellant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.5950 paid in excess in regards to only one policy, but the appellant instead deposited a sum of Rs.9450/-, which was more than what was asked, therefore, when the records were rechecked it was found that there were two more policies in respect of which excess payment was made totalling to Rs.9450/- but the said amount had already been deposited by the appellant.

Hence, notice was issued for the act of forgery.

26.12.1994 Appellant submitted his explanation stating therein that the aforesaid issue regarding excess payment was brought to appellant's notice through the Branch Manager, who advised him to go through his payments and confirm. Accordingly, after going through the payment received as commission, it was noticed that excess payment was made to him and accordingly same was deposited with respondent on 05.10.1994 vide voucher No.54284.

31.01.1995 Respondent issued show cause notice under Rule 16 (1) (b)

of LIC Rules, 1972 asking the appellant to show cause why his agency be not terminated and renewal commission be forfeited under Rule 19 (1).

17.02.1995 Appellant submitted his reply stating therein that it is a case of error committed by the LIC staff who are responsible for checking and passing the bills. There is no alteration committed by the appellant neither is it possible to commit any alteration as the department file is with the department to which appellant has no excess. The Local Branch Manager at Morena is acting out of vengeance against the appellant as the appellant had earlier made complaint against the Manager.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that case has a long drawn chequered history and appellant was always at the receiving hand. Since 1994-95, he is contesting the case. He was innocent and specifically took the stand before departmental authority as well as in different rounds of litigation filed in this regard. Ultimately, his case was considered and allowed by learned Writ Court vide order dt.06.05.2024 passed in W.P.No.1037/2025. However, the appellant feels that interest should have been awarded by the Court below on late payment of commission because it has been withheld by the Corporation deliberately.

6. Learned counsel