LIAFI congrats to Rajeev lohia for his victory
Ex-agent wins 10-yr battle against LIC for Rs44Lakhs dues //times of india 17-3-2013 kolkatta
Former LIC agent
Rajeev Lohia from Kolkata fought a legal battle against LIC for nearly 10 years
and got a ruling in his favour last October. LIC was directed by the division
bench of Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice Asim Kumar Mondal to pay
Lohia his entire dues within three months. The insurer, however, didn't do so
and when Lohia moved a contempt petition against the company in January this
year, it prayed for time to move a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court admitted the SLP on March 1 on condition that LIC
deposit Rs 44 lakh that was due to Lohia till 2011 with the court registry.
Son of an LIC agent,
Lohia joined the profession in 1975, when he was barely 18 years old. "I
would get up at 4 am, attend classes at St Xavier's College till 9.30 am then
go around 'cold canvassing'. This meant knocking on the doors of people I
didn't know and asking them if they required a policy. I remember when I met my
first client and produced my college identity card to prove that I wasn't a
fraud, the man told me his mother, a nominee to his policy, had died 10 years
ago. I told him that these are the small issues that can cause problems later
on. He was my first client. After my rounds, I would attend management classes
in the evenings," said Lohia, who went on to become the youngest
Chairman's Club member ever.
In his career
spanning 27 years, Lohia claims to have sold 2,764 policies to about 1,000
people. The premium per year for these policies amounts to Rs 2.25 crore.
"My father would get magazines on the insurance industry from the US.
These were of great help. From there we came to know of the Million Dollar
Round Table (MDRT) and started communicating with it. The MDRT used the
purchase price parity index to fix a barrier. Any agent who wished to qualify
for MDRT needed to earn a commission of Rs 1.25 lakh per year. This was in
1985. For 15 years, I remained a life and qualifying member of MDRT and
attended 12 conferences in the US and Canada. In 1986, for the first time, the
Indian flag was hoisted at a MDRT meet due to our efforts," Lohia said.
On March 7, 2002, he
resigned from LIC to join a private firm as regional manager. His agent's
licence was also due to expire on March 31 that year. The very next day, he was
asked by his branch manager to furnish the name and address of the private firm
that he had joined. Lohia refused to do so as he had already resigned and the
principal-agent relationship between LIC and him had ceased to exist. On April
22, 2002, he received a show-cause notice for alleged misconduct and LIC
threatened to terminate his agency. Lohia replied that he had already resigned
and his agency stood terminated. On August 16, 2002, he was informed that the
renewal commission due to him would be withheld as penalty for termination of
agency. The former agent preferred a departmental appeal but nothing came of
it.
"I had never
expected such a reaction from the company that I had served with such
commitment. This was when I realized that the
company treats agents as bonded labourers who have no rights to seek better
opportunities in life. I went to court, not only for myself but for
the three million LIC agents across the country. Under law, even after an
agent's death, his next to kin are eligible to receive the renewal commission. By withholding my commission,
was LIC trying to establish that agents would rather die than join other
companies?" Lohia said.
On August 13, 2003,
he moved a writ petition in the high court. He told the court that the renewal
commission can't be withheld save for commission of fraud. In his case,
termination of agency was not due to fraud, Lohia submitted. The court then wanted to know from LIC how much the
company owed the former agent. The company submitted that the renewal
commission due till June, 2011, was excess of Rs 44 lakh. A further Rs 32 lakh
was also due apart from Rs 1 lakh as gratuity.
According to the
judges, someone's right can't be taken away on 'mere presumption or
assumption'. "We hold that the
petitioner-appellant is entitled to get all benefits of renewal commission as
well as gratuity. We accordingly direct the respondent Corporation
to quantify the same and make payment and we permit three months time to do
so," the court ordered.
LIAFI …. LIAFI
…. LIAFI …. .LIAFI....
We are for
agents, we live for agents
LIAFI …. LIAFI
…. LIAFI …. LIAFI ….
vinay mohanty
No comments:
Post a Comment