The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the employer as an agent of the insurer for deducting and remitting the premium to the insurer, as well as the obligation of the insurer for payment of the sum insured.

A. R. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD shri M. D. Agarwal, for the appellants, Shri Rinesh Gupta, for respondent No. 1 and Shri Ajay Rastogi, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

( 2 ) THIS special appeal has been filed by the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India against the order dated 6-3-1998, passed by the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 288/1992, by which, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1- herein has been allowed.

( 3 ) THE husband of the respondent No. 1 herein, namely Rajilal, was employed with Kotputli Rural Electric Co-operative Society Ltd, which was subsequently taken over by the Rajasthan State electricity Board (RSEB ). Ramjilal was insured with the appellant corporation under the "salary Saving Scheme endorsement Policy" with Policy No. 012197041 for an amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 Ramjilal had authorised his employer namely ; respondents No. 2 and 3 herein to deduct a sum of Rs. 216. 70 from his salary every month in respect of the said policy and after deduction, to pay the same to the appellant corporation.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the appellant corporation, the premium of the said policy for the month of February and March, 1990 was not deducted from the salary of Shri Ramjilal and not remitted to the appellant corporation. Ramjilal expired on 22-5-1990 and, as such, the policy stood lapsed due to the non payment of monthly premium in time and even within the grace period allowed as per the condition of the said policy. The above contention was reiterated by Shri MD Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant corporation at the time of hearing.

( 5 ) THE respondent No. 1 herein filed a writ petition for payment of insurance amount. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the rival submissions, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 6-3-1998, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant corporation.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to Mr. M. D. Agarwal, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition in spite of the observations made in the order itself that in case the amount of premium had been delayed or not paid by employer, the liability can be fixed on the employer. According to Mr. M. D. Agarwal, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the premium for the months of February, 1990 and March, 1990 was not deducted and remitted by the employer to the corporation before the death of the deceased Ramjilal, but in spite of this fact, the writ petition has been allowed, which is an error on the face of the order itself.

( 7 ) MR. M. D. Agarwal has further submitted that there is no obligation on the part of the appellant corporation for payment of the sum insured as the policy was in a lapsed condition at the time of death of the life assured. Moreover, the deceased has fraudulently suppressed the material fact of his sickness, for which he has taken medical leave.

( 8 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Agarwal, the learned single Judge has failed to consider that the deceased had made the deliberate mis-statement in reply to the question Nos. 20 and21 of the proposal form and hence, the deceased was guilty of deliberate mis-statement and fraudulently suppression of the material information in the proposal from, which formed the basis of the contract between the insurer and insured.

( 9 ) WE have perused the averments made in the present special appeal as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge on 6-3-1998.

( 10 ) THE learned single Judge, in our opinion, has considered the rival submissions and on the basis of the material placed before him, came to the conclusion, rightly so and allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, issuing a mandamus to the appellant-corporation to pay the insured amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 with interest at the rate of 12% from the death i. e. 22-5-1990 till actual payment within two months. This judgment was rendered on 6-3-1998. The appellant -corporation has presen