1. This order will decide the above mentioned two petitions which entail the similar questions of facts and law. The whole controversy centres around the powers of an agent who with the implied permission of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [ to be referred as Insurance Co. onwards.], his principal gets issued the cheques in his own personal name and deposits the same with insurance co. which in turn issues the receipt in favour of policy holders. 2.. The Insurance Co. issued two policies one in the name of Smt. Sali Thomas bearing no. 0009361754 and another in the name of her husband Shri Narendran Pillai bearing no. 0009361778. The claimants had obtained the life insurance policy under Unit Plus Scheme of the petitioner company. The total premium was to be paid in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. The sum was to be paid in three yearly instalments @ Rs.1,50,000/-. The Field Officer, Mr. V. Joy of the insurance company used to collect the premium of cheques and issue receipts. The cheques were issued in the name of Mr. V. Joy, Field Officer himself. Mr. V. Joy himself used to remit the premium and company used to issue receipts. Receipts for Rs.1,50,000/- each in the name of both the complainants dated 18-08-2007 were issued by the Pthanamthitta Branch of the insurance company. The complainants surrendered for complete withdrawal of the assured sum in the month of June, 2009. Subsequently, on 27th June, 2009 duplicate copy of the policy documents were returned with an endorsement that the original policy bond was not received. However, Thiurvalla Branch of the petitioner company acknowledged the receipt of the original policy bond. On 7th August, 2009 a letter was received by the complainants that the company was unable to process with the surrendered requests as both the policies were blacklisted by the company. The complainants sent representation before the Grievance Cell of the petitioner company. It gave no reply. 3. Mr. V. Joy, Field Officer was proceeded against ex parte. 4. The petitioner company explained that Mr. V. Joy was not in the services of the petitioner company since 1st February, 2007 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 23-06-2007. The petitioner-co. did not receive payments vide cheques no. 194624 and 194625, as alleged. These cheques were drawn in the name of Mr. V. Joy, Field officer. He encashed it in his personal account and therefore, the company cannot be held liable. One Smt. Surajakumari was policy holder under the petitioner company. She submitted a complaint before the petitioner company and stated that her husband Mr. Mahathwy P.S. and she herself made payment vide DD No. 413107 dated 18th July, 2007 and the same were not accounted for. After verification it was found that on 18-07-2007 the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- each was adjusted in the policy of the complainants mistakenly. Consequently, the petitioner company cancelled the receipt issued regarding the policies of the complainants. The petitioner company had to blacklist the policies of the complainants as no premium was received. 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner has cited two authorities in support of his case. The first one is reported as Harshad J. Shah & Anr. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. AIR 1997 (SC) 2459 wherein it was held "In the instant case, it cannot be said that respondent no. 3 had the express authority to receive the premium on behalf of the LIC because in the letter of appointment dated December 5, 1962 there was a condition expressly prohibiting him from collecting the premium on behalf of the LIC. Nor can it be said that respondent no. 3 had an implied authority to collect the premium on behalf of the LIC because in 1972 the LIC has made a regulation (Regulation 8(4), which in 1981 became a rule, prohibiting the agents from collecting premium on behalf of the LIC. This shows that collection of premium was not necessary for or ordinarily incidental to the effective execution of his express authority by an agent. In view of this express prohibition in the Regulations/Rules which were published in the Gazette it is not possible to infer an implied authority by the LIC authorizing its agents to collect premium on behalf of the LIC." 6. The second authority is reported in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Girdhari Lal P. Kesarwani & Anr. I (2009) CPJ 228 (NC) wherein it was held "The only question is whether the LIC can be held liable on the basis of the doctrine of apparent authority. Mr. Mathur has invoked the said doctrine and has relied upon Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act. He has urged that, by its conduct in receiving the premium through its agents, the LIC had induced the policy holders to believe that acts of the agents in receiving the premium from the policy holders were within the scope of the agents’ authority. Mr. Mathur has laid stress on the fact that respondent no. 3 was permitted to deposit the amount of Rs.2,730/- towards premiums with the LIC on August 10, 1987 on behalf of the insured. We, however, find that in the complaint that was filed on behalf of the appellants before the State Commission no such case was set up by the appellants that the LIC, by its conduct, had induced the policy-holders, including the insured, to believe that the agents (including respondent no. 3) were authorised to receive the premium on behalf of the LIC. Nor is there any material on record which may lend support to the submission urged on behalf of the appellants that by its conduct the LIC had induced the policy-holders, including the insured, to believe that agents were authorised to receive premium on behalf of the LIC. The only circumstance replied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is the receipt of the amount of Rs.2,730/- by the LIC on August 10, 1987. In this regard, the submission of Shri Salve is that issuance of the receipt for the said amount of Rs.2, 730 by the LIC in the name of the insured does not indicate that the amount was received through respondent no. 3 and that on the basis of the said receipt it cannot be said that the LIC had induced the insured to believe that respondent no. 3 was authorised to receive the amount of premium on behalf of the LIC. We find considerable merit in this submission. From the mere fact that respondent no. 3 had obtained bearer cheque for Rs.2,730/- from the insured on June 4, 1987 and after encashing the same from the Bank on June 5, 1987, had deposited the said amount with the LIC on August 10, 1987, it cannot be said that the LIC had induced the insured to believe that respondent no. 3 had been authorised by the LIC to receive premium on behalf of the LIC. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the doctrine of apparent authority underlying Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act can be invoked in the facts of this case especially when the LIC has been careful in making an express provision in the Regulations/Rules, which are statutory in nature, indicating that the agents are not authorised to collect any moneys or accept any risk on behalf of the LIC and they can collect so only if they are expressly authorised to do so." 7.. Parallels cannot be drawn between the facts of this case and those of authorities. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. V. Joy was their Field Officer. He also did not pick up a conflict regarding the procedure adopted by them that the cheques will be given in the name of the field officer who will get the same encashed and deposit the amount with the petitioner company. There is not even a iota of evidence that objections were raised by the Insurance Co. This is a fact of utmost importance that the receipts for third premium were also issued by the petitioner company. The same were marked as Exhibit A5 and Exhibit A6 in respective cases. It also transpired that Smt. Surajakumari in her complaint dated 27-01-2009 informed that she had made the remittance through V. Joy, Field Officer but it was found that no receipts were issued in her favour and the amounts were not accounted for in the policies and the policies stood lapsed. No literature/pamphlet or printed form saw the light of the day to show that agents were prohibited from receiving the money in their personal names. There was implied consent of the Insurance Company. 8. It is thus clear that Mr. V. Joy, Field Officer led up a number of gullible persons the garden path . As a matter of fact the petitioner company should not have permitted Mr. V. Joy to collect the amount in his own name. They should have insisted Mr. V. Joy to get the cheques in the name of the company. Mr. V. Joy is the agent of the company and they must be jointly held liable. All the amounts i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- each on 24.6.2005, Rs.1,50,000/- each on 21.6.2006 and Rs.1,50,000/- each were collected by Mr. V. Joy. He used to collect the premium cheques and return company issued receipts for the same. No objection was raised by the insurance company. It clearly indicates that there was implied authority as the dispute arose about 3rd year premium. The possibility of Mr. V. Joy working in the cahoots with some officials of the Insurance Company cannot be ruled out. There is no evidence on record to show that any police report was lodged against Mr. V. Joy. 9. In this case receipts were given in favour of the complainants. This is not for the complainants to find out where the money has vanished since the receipts were issued in their favour and therefore, it is to be presumed that the money was received by the petitioner company. The LIC has got specific directions for their agents. The petitioner case cannot be equated with it. The petitions are without force and are hereby dismissed.