ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. In the instant case, petitioner has sought for quashing the letter/order dated 15th October 2001 and letter dated 11th February 2002 vide Annexures E and H respectively, both passed by respondent, as the same are arbitrary and illegal and hence unsustainable in law. Further petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondent to settle the claim of the petitioner and make payment of Rs. 75,000/- due under the Master Policy No. 73777 on account of the death of her husband Sri. Nanjundappa, S.G. forthwith.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is the legally wedded wife of one Nanjundappa, S.G. who was working as Head Master at Sri. Basavarajendra Demonstration High School, Arasikere, Hassan District which is a Government Aided School. While he was so working, he was also a member of Employees Group Saving linked Insurance Scheme vide Master Policy No. GSLI 73777 issued by respondent and was regularly contributing his premium amount of Rs. 75/- per month towards the said policy along with other members of the scheme who are staff working in the same School. The said scheme consists of 12 members. Under the said scheme, every member has to contribute the premium amount and the same was being deducted in their monthly salary towards the said policy. The petitioner's husband was a Head Master cum Drawing Officer of the Said School and he used to prepare monthly salary bill of the staff and send it to the Treasury. After consolidating the premium amount of all the twelve members including himself, he used to send the premium by way of Demand Draft to the respondent every month regularly towards the said Master policy for which the LIC used to issue receipts. When things stood thus, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 5th August 2001 white he was in service. The School Management in its meeting held on 24th August 2001 has decided to promote one Sri. Prasanna kumar, Assistant Teacher, who was the senior most teacher as the Head Master of the said School in the place which fell vacant on account of the death of the husband of petitioner, Sri. Nanjundappa. After the death of the husband of petitioner, petitioner submitted her claim for payment of insurance amount of Rs. 75,000/- due under the said Group Insurance Scheme vide Master Policy No. 73777. The Head Master of the said School, who was also the Drawing Officer of the said School also communicated on 4th September 2001 to the respondent - Insurance Company intimating the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, enclosing therewith the death certificate of late Sri. Nanjundappa S.G. and requested the Insurance company to release the amount guaranteed under the Master policy in favour of petitioner. The respondent -Insurance Company, instead of considering the claim of the claimant on account of the death of the husband of petitioner, Sri. Nanjundappa S.G., has sent a communication dated 5th October 2001 vide Annexure E, informing the Head Master of the said School that, the School has not remitted the premium due for the month of July 2005 and the premium which was due for payment on or before 27th July 2001 was received on 8th September 2001 and therefore life cover amount cannot be settled. In reply to the same, the Head Master of the School has sent a communication to the respondent -Insurance Company on 27th December 2001 vide Annexure G, stating that, on account of the death of the earlier Head Master, i.e. late Sri. Nanjundappa S.G., no other Head Master is appointed till 25th August 2001 and that the new Head Master has taken over the charge only on 27th August 2001 and purchased the Demand Draft on 4th September 2001 and sent the same to insurance Company. The policy amount has been forwarded in respect of all the twelve employees by giving detailed explanation for delayed payment. The respondent-Insurance Company, instead of accepting the explanation offered by the new Head Master of the School, has issued the impugned communication dated 11th February 2002 vide Annexure H stating that, the School is very irregular in remittance of monthly premiums and that, there is clear delay of two to three months. Further, it is stated that, as on the date of death of Sri. Nanjundappa S.G., the premium for the month of June 2001 only was received and the policy is in a lapsed condition and when the policy is in a lapsed condition, death claim cannot be settled as per policy conditions. Further, they have stated that, they have settled a sum of Rs. 1,590/- on 20th October 2001 being the withdrawal benefit available to the policy holder. Being aggrieved by the impugned communications vide Annexures E and H referred above, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.
3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondent -insurance Company. After careful perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned communications vide Annexures E and H issued by respondent - Insurance Company, it is manifest on the face of the said communications that, the respondent has committed a grave error and material irregularity in issuing the said communications. It is significant to note here itself that, as per the communication dated 11th February 2001 vide Annexure H, the said authority has given the details in a tabular form by mentioning the premium for the months, dates on which the same is sent by School and the dates on which the premium is received by LIC. After careful perusal of the said table, mentioning item Nos. 1 to 4 , it can be seen that, the premium for the months of February, March and April 2001 are sent on 8th June 2001 and the same is received by 12th June 2001, the premium for the month of May 2001 is received by Insurance Company on 29th June 2001 and the premium for the month of June 2001 is received by the Insurance Company on 4th August 2001. This table makes amply clear that, there is delay only in respect of the months of January to April 2001 and that, in spite of the said delay, the premium has been accepted by the company. Once they have accepted the delayed premium without any resistance at that time, it is not now open for the Insurance Company to take a stand that, the party is irregular in remittance of premium amount and delay has occurred. The reference given by the Insurance Company in a tabular form itself proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, they have accepted the premium paid on behalf of the husband of petitioner along with other staff members of the School. Because this is a Group insurance, the premium is forwarded by the Head Master of the school being the Drawing Officer. It is not fair on the part of respondent in taking hyper technical objections stating that, the premium has not been received within the prescribed period. If that is the case, they might have intimated the School at time itself, before accepting the same. If the policy has been lapsed, then, the Insurance Company ought not to have received the delayed premium forwarded by the School. Once they have accepted premium, now it is not open for the respondent to take the stand that the policy has lapsed and petitioner is not entitled for claim of compensation. Therefore, On this ground alone, the impugned communications issued by respondent vide Annexures E and H are liable to be set aside. Further, learned Counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court In Writ Appeal No. 5758/2000 disposed of on 5th August 2003 (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. SRI. K. Ram Iyer and Anr.) wherein it is held by the Division Bench of this Court that, the employer acts only as an agent to collect the premium from its employees and therefore, the default in payment of premium cannot be attributed to the deceased and It cannot affect the rights of the claimant claiming the benefits and the appeal by the Insurance Company was dismissed with a direction to the Insurance Company to settle the claim of the claimant in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court. If the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment is taken into consideration and applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, in my considered view, petitioner is entitled to claim the compensation amount covered under the policy of her husband.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed. The impugned communications dated 15th October 2001 and 11th February 2002 vide Annexures E and H respectively, both issued by respondent are hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to respondent with a direction to settle the claim of the claimant - petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. With these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioner succeeds and stands disposed of.