BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Monday, 5th December 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 49 / 2016
Segu BalaVenkateswarlu, S/o S. Pedda Kondaiah,
Hindu, aged about 50 years, LIC Agent Banaganapalle,
Agent No. 005126022, D.No. 10/97 owk,
Banaganapalle, Kurnool district. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India,
Divisional Office, Kadapa, Govt. College Road, Kadapa City.
2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Market Road,
Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Banaganapalle,
Kurnool District. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 29-11-2016 in the presence of Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to pay LIC commission of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 with interest @ 36% p.a. till the date of payment, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages caused to the Complainant, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs to the Complainant.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant joined as LIC agent at Banaganapalle branch office on 11-11-2003 and had given Rs. 3,000/- LIC policies from 11-11-2003 to 28-9-2014 and developed business of the Opposite parties to the tune of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-. But the Opposite parties had not taken into consideration the services rendered by the Complainant and terminated him on 29-9-2014 from his services at Kadapa by attributing vague allegations i.e. in two LIC policy Nos. 655658418 and 655658389 through letter dt. 29-9-2014 of O.P.1 without conducting any enquiry and forfeited the commission of the Complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the years 2012013 and 2013-14. The termination orders are not sent to the Complainant by the O.P.1 which is a mandatory provision and has not followed the principles of natural justice, thereby the Complainant has put to heavy monetary loss. Hence, this complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed counter and the same was adopted by O.P2 filing memo. O.P.1 denied allegations in the complaint. It is further contended that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(d) of C.P. Act 1986. The Complainant is only an agent of the Opposite parties to bring business and he gets commission on the business procured by him. Therefore, the question of hiring of his services by the Opposite parties does not arise. On the other hand the Complainant does services for insurance company for which he gets commission as remuneration. Hence, he will not come under the definition of Consumer within the meaning of Provisions of C.P. Act. An agent is not employee or servant of the employer. An agent under the contract act represents his principal. Thus under the contract act agent does duties on behalf of the principal and is not separate entity from that of his employer. So the Complainant is not a consumer. The reliefs claimed by the Complainant payment of commission to him is unknown under the provisions of C.P. Act.
4. It is further averred that the Complainant had procured 1738 policies only but not 3000 policies and out of them 270 policies are only in full force and 220 policies are in paid up status. During the year 2012-13 the Complainant has procured only 7 policies against minimum 12 policies as per regulation No. 9 of agencies regulations 1972 and thus not procured minimum business of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, his agency was terminated w.e.f 01-12-2013 and agency was not in force till 29-9-2014. The services of Complainant are not up to the mark.
5. The Complainant has procured two policies bearing Nos. 655658418 and 655658339 relating to one Bakka Ayyanna and S.V. Subbaiah for Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively. Since, these two policies resulted in very early claims, explanation was called for from the Complainant regarding Bakka Ayanna policy on 27-11-2013 and regarding S.V. Subbaiah policy on 12-9-2013. However, the Complainant did not offer any explanation. The Complainant utterly failed to follow the regulation 8 (2) (b) of regulations act 1972. The Complainant has also submitted a fake death certificate under policy No. 653728600 though the said policy holder is still alive. One development officer Prasad Rao was also terminated in respect of the policy of Bakka Ayyanna. Hence, the competent authority of the corporation terminated the Complainant with forfeiture of renewal commission and in terms of Regulation 19 of agents regulation 1972. A letter to that effect has been sent to the Complainant on 29-9-2014, thus the Complainant has not procured minimum business, and committed fraud by recommending false proposals, encouraged fraudulent claims. Therefore, all these aspects requires recording of volumes of evidence, examination of several witness and scrutiny of several documents and this matter cannot be decided in summary manner. The Complaint is also hopelessly barred by limitation since the allegations relates 2012-13 & 2013-14. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed from the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
7. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A10 documents are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of Opposite parties.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record and considered written arguments filed by Opposite parties and citations placed by the parties.
9. Point No. 1 Learned counsel for Complainant contended that the Complainant is an agent of Opposite parties and did LIC business with them by procuring LIC policies from the public and for that he received some commission. However, during the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 the Opposite parties have not paid commission to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- on the pretext of his agency was terminated by 29-9-2014, but no notice was given to him. Therefore, he is entitled for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as commission, Rs. 1,00,000/- for damages and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony totaling Rs. 6,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint may be allowed.
10. Per contra learned counsel for Opposite parties vehemently contended that the Complainant is not at all a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and though he was an agent of the Opposite parties he committed fraud and not did business as per requirements of the LIC regulations and his agency was terminated w.e.f 01-12-2013 and the same is proved, even as per Ex. A3 filed by the Complainant with forfeiture renewal commission. Therefore, the Complainant cannot file this complaint without challenging the termination order of the competent authority. As such the complaint is not maintainable and no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties and the Complainant is not entitled for reliefs claimed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In support of his contention the counsel for Opposite parties relied on Kerala High Court judgement in W.P. (c) No. 10197/2005 (L) that the Complainant who is an agent is not entitled for reliefs.
12. In this case the fact that the Complainant is an agent of Opposite parties is not in dispute. According to the Complaint he did business by procuring LIC polices to the Opposite parties and in turn he was getting commission. But he was terminated as per orders on 01-12-2013 and his renewal commission was not paid for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Complainant claimed renewal commission was Rs. 4,00,000/- apart from damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony.
13. Opposite parties opposed the claim of Complainant on the ground that the Complainant is not at all consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act and the complaint is not maintainable. We have carefully perused the provision under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act to see whether the Complainant will come under the meaning of “Consumer”. After going through the above provision carefully we have come to the conclusion that the Complainant herein is not a “consumer” under this act and the complaint is not maintainable. Complainant in this case has not purchased any goods for consideration. Even assuming for the sake if the Opposite parties availed his services i.e. only for commercial purpose. Therefore, under any stretch of imagination the Complainant in this case cannot be construed as “consumer” as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.
14. Coming to the next aspect, the Complainant herein was agent of Opposite parties. He was terminated from his agency as per Ex. A3 by 01-12-2013 with forfeiture of renewal commission, as he committed fraud by the competent authority. The Complainant herein has not challenged that domestic enquiry order on termination of his agency by the Opposite parties. Without challenging the termination order by the competent authority the Complainant cannot file this complaint before this forum for recovery of renewal commission for the years 2012-13, 2013-14 without setting aside the termination order of his agency. In the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court at Ernakulam held in W.P. (C) No. 10197/2055 (L). Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that :-
“Actually fraud is not defined in the LIC Regulations 1972 or in the LIC act. From the nature of statute, a domestic enquiry as stated by the competent authority is permissible for detecting the fraud. If that be the position, if any fraud is detected, the competent authority under schedule I can conduct an enquiry for detecting fraud. If fraud is properly proved in an enquiry by competent authority, the corporation can dispense with the agents renewal commission. The power under Regulation 19 (1) of Regulations 1972 can be exercised in a domestic enquiry and no harm in withholding renewal commission. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and I fully agree with the findings of the Senior Divisional Manager in dispensing the renewal commission Under Regulation 19 (1) and this writ petition is dismissed accordingly”.
In the present case on hand a domestic enquiry was said to have been conducted by the competent authority and fraud was detected and the agency of the Complainant was terminated with forfeiture of renewal commission under regulation 19 (1) of LIC regulation 1972. Therefore, without challenging that competent authority termination order of his agency and setting aside the same filing of complaint in this forum for recovery of the renewal commission and the damages is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
15. Though the Complainant counsel relied on Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundary, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1265 for the proposition that the complaint is maintainable, but a perusal of the above judgement reveal that it does not applicable to the facts of this case and no avail to Complainant.
16. After going through the contentions of both parties and citations placed by them we hold that the complaint is not maintainable and the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point is answered.
17. Point No. 2. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances no costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 5th December 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 Original appointment orders as L.I.C. Agent of the Complainant,
Dt. 11-11-2003.
Ex: A2 Copies of Syndicate Bank passbook savings No.33753070001284 of
Banganapalle and LK.I.C. commission remittance particulars.
Ex: A3 Termination orders Dt. 29-9-2014 obtained under R.T.I. Act, 2005.
Ex: A4 Appeal t. 10-7-2015 of the complainant no.1.
Ex: A5 Letter addressed to the Complainant no.1 under R.T.I. Act, 2005.
Ex: A6 Letter addressed to the complainant under R.T.I. Act, Dt. 13-7-2015.
Ex: A7 Letter addressed to the complainant under R.T.I. Act, dt. 20-8-2015.
Ex: A8 Letter received from the O.P.1 dt. 8-8-15 from the opposite party.
Ex: A9 Letter received from the opposite party no.1 Dt. 17-8-2015.
Ex: A10 Letter received from the opposite party no.2, Dt. 8-9-2015.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate for Complainant.
- Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for Opposite parties
B.V.P
