IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU OWP No. 221 of 2005 Ram Pyari Sharma petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. respondents !Mrs. Surinder Kour, Advocate ^Mr. Amur Kotwal, Advocate MR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE Date : 11/12/2008 : J U D G M E N T :
Ram Pyari Sharma, the petitioner, has filed this petition seeking
quashing of Life Insurance Corporation, Udhampur’s order of March 06,
2004 terminating her Agency with effect from March 01, 2004 besides
issuance of directions to Life Insurance Corporation of India and its
functionaries to permit her to work as LIC Agent.
Petitioner’s learned counsel, Mrs. Surinder Kour submits that
termination of petitioner’s agency being one under Clause 16 of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, was bad in law
as
no Show Cause Notice in terms of proviso appended to Clause 16 of the
Regulations had been issued by the respondents to the petitioner.
Respondents learned Counsel, Mr. Amur Kotwal, on the other hand,
submits that no such notice as contemplated by the proviso to Clause 16 of
2
the Regulations was required to be issued to the petitioner whose Agency
had
been terminated by the Corporation under Clause 13 of the Regulations
because of her failure to procure requisite business in the relevant Agency
year in terms of Regulation 9. Learned counsel further submitted that as the
petitioner had been terminated thrice during the course of her Agency i.e.
firstly on 1.3.1999 for procuring insufficient business and thereafter on
1.3.2003 and 1.3.2004 for similar reasons so her request for reinstatement
too
was impermissible as such a course was specifically prohibited under the
Corporation Guidelines issued in this behalf.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties at the Bar.
Termination of Agency under Clause 16 of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations,1972 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Regulations”) contemplates an act of omission or commission by an
Agent in respect of the functions he is obliged to do during the currency of
his
Agency in terms of Regulation 8 (2) (a) to (d) and 8 (3) (a) to (d) of the
Regulations and in the event of any such termination based on violation of
the
provisions of Section 8 (2) and (3) of the Regulations, a notice is
compulsorily required to be issued by the Corporation to an Agent whose
Agency is intended to be terminated. No such notice before termination of
Agency may, however, be required when termination is under Clause 13 of
the Regulations, based on failure of the Agent to secure minimum amount of
business in the relevant Agency year in terms of Clause 9 of the Regulations.
3
Petitioner’s termination having been effected by the respondents under
Clause 13 of the Regulations, no notice before such termination was thus
required to be issued to her. Petitioner’s counsel’s submission that no show
cause notice having been issued to the petitioner before issuing the
impugned
order would render the impugned order illegal is, thus, rejected as
misconceived.
That apart, having already been allowed two reinstatements on earlier
occasions, the petitioner would not be entitled to any further reinstatement in
terms of the guidelines which the Corporation had issued on the subject.
Petitioner’s representation against her termination was, thus, unsustainable
and no orders were required to be passed by the respondents thereon as the
petitioner, in terms of the Corporation guidelines, is not entitled to seek
restoration of her Agency for the third time.
For all what has been said above, I do not find the respondents to have
violated the provisions of the Act which governed the terms and conditions
of
the petitioner’s Agency.
There being no merit in petitioner’s writ petition, it is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(J. P. Singh)
Judge
JAMMU:
11.12.2008:
Tilak, Secy.
