Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is before the Court assailing the award dated 6 March 2014 passed by the first respondent, Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat, Meerut, in PLA No. 112 of 2013, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay the entire sum due on the life insurance policy alongwith 9% interest from the date on which the petition was presented.

3. The facts, briefly stated, is that the second respondent, Dharam Pal Singh on 23 March 1995 had taken a Money Back Policy with profits for 25 years for his son Sanjeev Kumar Singh. The sum assured was for Rs. 1 lac. It is not in dispute, inter se, parties that the premium was paid at regular intervals by the second respondent. On 23 November 2013, the second respondent informed the LIC that his son has gone missing on 6 July 2005 and since more than 8 years have lapsed, therefore, a presumption of death be drawn, consequently, the sum due on the policy alongwith accrued bonus be paid.

4. Petitioner LIC rejected the claim of the second respondent on a plea that civil death can be presumed only after a declaration by a Court and in absence of a decree, of the competent Court, the claim, therefore, was rejected. Aggrieved, petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat which upon considering the material available on record and the witnesses, passed the impugned award.

5. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in view of the provisions contained under Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act the presumption as to the death would arise only on lapse of 7 years and would not by applying any logic or reasoning be permitted to raise after lapse of 7 years, and occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question is raised in a Court, Tribunal or before any Authority who is directed upon to decide, as to whether, the person is alive or dead. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum, in a legal proceedings, the occasion for raising the presumption does not arise. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Anuradha, 2004 (10) SCC 131. (LIC of India)

6. In rebuttal, Sri Prateek Kumar holding brief of Sri Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the son of the second respondent went missing in 2005 and after a lapse of 8 years the claim was raised with the LIC, thus, raising a presumption of civil death. Further, would submit that three issues was framed by the Lok Adalat: (i) as to whether, the son of the second respondent was heard of after 6 November 2005; (ii) as to whether, under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, the death of the son of second respondent can be presumed; (iii) as to whether, the Permanent Lok Adalat/Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare the death of the son of the second respondent.

7. In LIC of India the Supreme Court upon considering the provisions of Section 107 and 108 was of the opinion that neither Section 108 of the Evidence Act nor logic, reason or sense permit a presumption or assumption being drawn or made that the person not heard of for 7 years was dead on the date of his disappearance or soon after the date and time on which he was last seen. The only inference permissible to be drawn and posed on the presumption that the man was dead at the time when the question arose subject to a period of 7 years absence and being heard of having elapsed before that time. The period of 7 years would have to be counted backward from the date on which the question arose for determination. Accordingly, the Court held as follows:

On the basis of the abovesaid authorities, we unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which we sum up in the following words. The law as to presumption of death remains the same whether in Common Law of England or in the statutory provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evid