KULDEEP TIWARI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution, petitioner has called in question tenability of order Annexure P/1 dated 30-7-2002, by which the agency of the petitioner as Insurance agent has been terminated.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed vide Annexure P/3 as an agent in accordance with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Licensing of Insurance Agents) Regulations, 2000 for a period of three years from 15-1-2002 for procuring and soliciting business of general insurers. It is the case of the petitioner that after the license was granted to him vide Annexure P/3 he had been discharging his duties effectively and sincerely to the fullest satisfaction of the competent authority. He has procured the business as required under the Rules, but in an arbitrary manner without giving him any opportunity of hearing, without issuing show cause notice and in total disregard and in violation of the principle of natural justice , his agency has been terminated, on the ground of complaint received against him with regard to collection of premium and termination of agency on the basis of enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner is said to be unsustainable.

(3.) On notice being issued, respondent insurance company has filed its return and it is submitted by them that the petitioner is only an agent, there is no relationship of employer and employee, he was only authorised to act as an Insurance agent vide Annexure P/3 and, therefore, question of his removal from services does not arise. However, in para 5.7 of the return it is mentioned as under :