AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandran Nair, J.—This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the decision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India to deny renewal commission to the appellant after his termination as an LIC agent. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Standing Counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
The appellant served in the Life Insurance Corporation as an Agent for several years and in the course of his service as an Agent, he canvassed substantial business for the Life Insurance Corporation. However, when the appellant discontinued his agency with the Life Insurance Corporation and joined a competitor insurance company in the private sector, namely Reliance, the Life Insurance Corporation discontinued renewal commission to the appellant for the policies contracted by him during his tenure as an Agent. Disqualification for renewal commission was declared by the Life Insurance Corporation by relying on Section 44 of the Insurance Act. When this was challenged before the learned Single Judge in WP(C), the learned Single Judge rejected the same by holding that renewal commission is entitled to an Agent who was served for 10 years, only if he does not directly or indirectly solicit or procure insurance business for any other person as stated in Section 44(c) of the Insurance Act. Learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on the provisos (a), (b), (bb), (bbb) and (c) to Section 44(1) of the Act to contend that eligibility for renewal commission is in the alternate, and on satisfaction of any of the conditions an agent who was served for the period stated in the provisos is entitled to renewal commission. However, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Life Insurance Corporation opposed stating that eligibility for renewal commission under clause (c) is on specific condition that the person after discontinuing his agency with the LIC should not directly or indirectly solicit or procure insurance business for any other person. After hearing both sides and on going through Section 44(1) of the Act, we are of the view that the 2nd part of proviso (c) makes it clear that in order to qualify for renewal commission under sub Section (1) of Section 44 besides satisfying any of the conditions of provisos (a), (b), (bb) & (bbb) including ten years period referred to in the first part of the proviso (c), the claimant should also satisfy that after release from the Life Insurance Corporation as their agent, he is not engaged directly or indirectly in any insurance business or soliciting or procuring such business for any other person. In fact, the last part of proviso (c) is actually a condition for eligibility for renewal commission after a person has ceased to be an LIC Agent in as much as if he wants to get renewal commission for the business canvassed during his service as an Agent with the Life Insurance Corporation, he should not join with a competitor and procure insurance business for them. In this case, the appellant, admittedly is doing business for the Reliance Life Insurance Company in the private sector, which is a competitor, and therefore, the LIC rightly disqualified the appellant from getting renewal commission. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard.
Consequently, we dismiss this Writ Appeal.