Judgment 1. This First Appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dt. 10th Oct. , 1977, passed by Sri K.P. Sinha, 2nd Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 48 of 1975, whereby and whereunder the said court decreed the plaintiff-respondent suit in part. 2. The plaintiff had filed the aforementioned suit for realisation of a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 and also for a sum of Rs. 1800.00 as interest thereon. 3. The learned Trial Court granted a decree in the aforementioned suit for a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 but did not grant a decree in respect of the interest claimed by him. The plaintiff has filed cross objection against that part of the decree whereby and wherein the learned court below refused to grant interest in favour of the plaintiff-respondents, and the defendant has preferred this appeal at against that part of the decree whereby the learned lower court below had decreed the plaintiff-respondents suit to the extent of Rs. 10,000.00 as aforementioned. 4. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 5. One Sudarshan Prabha Bhalla, wife of the plaintiff obtained a policy bearing No. 30491486 on her life with the appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India. The said contract of insurance was entered into by and between the parties to the suit through Divisional Office, Jamshedpur. The said policy of insurance commenced from 17-6-1970. In that policy the aforementioned Sudarshan Prabha Bhalla nominated the plaintiff as her nominee on 17-6-1970 itself the first premium which was payable half yearly was also paid on the date. The second premium was payable on 17-12-1970. It, however, appears that the said premium was sent by a cheque but the Life Insurance Corporation of India did not receive the said cheque. Later on, however the said premium had been sent together with interest to the appellant by cheque, wherefor a receipt bearing No. BOC 192772 dt. 15-9-1971 was granted in favour of the deceased. The deceased was also got herself medically examined and the doctor who examined the deceased also granted a certificate in her favour. 6. The life assured died on 13-8-1972 at Bokaro Steel City. During her lifetime, the 3rd, 4th and 5th premiums payable in terms of the policy aforementioned within the requisite time were paid and accepted by the appellant. The deceased was also got herself medically examined and the doctor who examined the deceased also granted a certificate in her favour. 6. The life assured died on 13-8-1972 at Bokaro Steel City. During her lifetime, the 3rd, 4th and 5th premiums payable in terms of the policy aforementioned within the requisite time were paid and accepted by the appellant. It is also on the record that the appellant granted receipts to the assured and acknowledged the receipt of the aforementioned 3rd, 4th and 5th premiums due in respect of the aforementioned policy. 7. Upon the death of the assured which as stated hereinbefore took on 13-8-1972, the plaintiff made a claim upon the Life Insurance Corporation of India and asked it to send the claim form etc. in order to enable him to complete the formalities for the purpose of lodging a claim. 8. However, after lapse of about two months from the said date, the appellant replied that in view of the fact that the second premium was not paid in time, the Life Insurance policy had automatically lapsed and as such no amount was payable to the plaintiff. 9. The learned Trial Court has framed as many as eight issues, which reads as follows :- 1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? 4. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquisence? 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the policy lapsed due to non-payment of the 2nd premium due on 17-12-1970 within non forfeiture period of six months and there was no revival of the policy? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed ? 8. To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled. 10. The learned trial Court, however, as noticed hereinbefore refused to grant interest in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that in terms of the contract of insurance as embodied in the policy, the second premium was to be paid within the stipulated period i.e, 17-12-1970, and, as the said premium was admittedly not paid, the policy itself lapsed, and in this view of the matter, the question of revival of the said policy did not arise. 12. The learned counsel, further drew my attention to the statement of the plaintiff who examined PW4 for the purpose of showing that he categorically stated that he did not remember as to whether the earlier cheque in respect of second premium was sent by registered post or ordinary post. According to the learned counsel, therefore, there was no proof that in fact the second premium was tendered by the assured to the appellant within the stipulated period. 13. The learned counsel further drew my attention to Exbts.2/G and 2/H, and, submitted that the Development Officer who was added in the suit as defendant No. 7 acted mala fide in issuing the said letters, as he happened to be the close acquaintance of the plaintiff. However, in my opinion, it is not necessary to consider the submissions of Mr. Prasads in great details. 14. Admittedly, the appellant accepted the 3rd, 4th, and 5th premiums without any demur whatsoever and granted receipt in relation thereto. It is, further, admitted that it even accepted the cheque sent by the assured in respect of second premium along with interest without any demur. 15. In such a situation, in my opinion, the defendant would be deemed to waive its right to withhold payment under the said policy to the plaintiff allegedly on the ground that the said policy lapsed by reason of non payment of the 2nd half yearly premium. This aspect of the matter has been considered in various cases. Reference in this connection may be made to the Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Omprakash Agrawalla, AIR 1977 Gauhati 11, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay V/s. Ramdas Agrawal, AIR 1979 Pat 124 , Shitla Prasad V/s. Allahabad Finance Corporation, AIR 1981 All 361 and in Smt. Kiran Sinha V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1983 Pat 142 . The aforementioned Patna High Court decisions have been rendered by Division Benches which are binding upon this Court. The aforementioned Patna High Court decisions have been rendered by Division Benches which are binding upon this Court. In Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay V/s. Ramdas Agrawal, AIR 1979 Pat 124 (Para 10), the Division Bench held as follows : "that if the policy had lapsed, the policy was duly revived by the assured during his lifetime within five years from the due date of the unpaid premium amount by getting himself examined by a doctor of the Corporation and the interest amount was waived by the Corporation." It further held that (Para 10)- "that Corporation had abandoned the right to realise the interest from the assured, and, as such, it never issued any notice for the realisation of the interest amount. The Corporation had knowledge about the condition in the policy, and it had also knowledge that such amount is due as interest with the assured and, in spite of this knowledge the Corporation never intended to realise the interest never informed the assured to that effect. In this circumstances, the waiver on the part of the Corporation was an intentional act with knowledge. If it is so, the Corporation is precluded from realising the interest. " It also further held that (Para 12) - "the policy had not lapsed for the simple reason that the Corporation went on accepting the premium even after 1964. The premium amount was received and accepted by the Corporation in the years 1964, 1965 and 1967. The Corporation kept the premium amount in deposit. The Corporation never refused to accept the amount. If it is so, the Corporation is precluded from saying that it had received it otherwise than for the purpose of the premium. By accepting the premium, the Corporation cannot take the plea that the policy had lapsed. By accepting the premium the Corporation kept the policy alive and it never lapsed. " In view of the aforementioned binding decisions of this Court as also the other High Courts it has to be held that the appellant by its conduct has waived its right. 16. The appellants is thus barred under the principles of estoppel and waiver. So far as, cross objection filed by the plaintiff respondents is concerned, which is as noticed hereinbefore was confined to the sum of Rs. 16. The appellants is thus barred under the principles of estoppel and waiver. So far as, cross objection filed by the plaintiff respondents is concerned, which is as noticed hereinbefore was confined to the sum of Rs. 1,800.00 which the learned trial Court refused to grant on the ground that no interest is payable by way of damages. 17. So far as plaintiff is concerned, he had claimed a specific amount from the defendant appellant. As noticed hereinbefore, the plaintiff also made a claim upon the appellant informing it about the death of the assured, and, further requesting it to send to him all the necessary forms in order to enable him to file his claim. He, therefore, in effect and substance made a request for payment upon the Life Insurance Corporation of India for paying to him the aforementioned sum payable on the death of the assured. In Union of India V/s. Steel Stock Holders Syndicate, Poona, AIR 1976 SC 879 , the Supreme Court upon consideration of various other decisions held that if a specified amount of claim is made by the plaintiff, in such an event he may be held to be entitled to interest thereon. 18. In this view of the matter, in my opinion the plaintiff ought to have been granted interest on the aforementioned sum of Rs. 10,000.00 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, which in my opinion is reasonable. 19. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed and the cross objection is allowed to the aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.