S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner's husband was employed by the 1st respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the 'company' ). The company had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent-life insurance corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation'), two sets of agreements were entered into between the company and the corporation. One in relation to the superannuation scheme and another group insurance scheme. The petitioner's husband. died on 21-10-1989. The petitioner applied for payment of the benefits arising out of the two schemes. The company paid the amount due under the superannuation scheme to the petitioner, while the corporation denied payment in regard to benefits arising under the group insurance scheme. Hence this petition. ( 2 ) THE corporation has filed statement of objections stating that the company had to pay the premium as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the group insurance master policy and the premium had not been paid in due time i. e. , 1st july, 1989 as required under the policy, but paid subsequently on 27-10-1989. Therefore, premium having been received on that day, the said scheme was allowed to be applicable with effect from 27-10-1989. It is contended that the corporation did not accept the premium in respect of petitioner's husband but only a proportionate premium from 27-10-1989 to 30-6-1990 and the excess premium paid was refunded to the company on 20-3-1990. The corporation having accepted the premium only in respect of persons living on 27-101989 and no premium having been accepted in respect of an employee for the period prior to 27-10-1989, there is no risk covered so far as the petitioner's husband is concerned and the persons who were living on 27-10-1989 alone were covered under the group insurance master policy and not the petitioner's husband who died on 21-10-1989 and therefore, it is contended that the corporation is not liable to make good the payment sought for by the petitioner. It is urged before me that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in this petition in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Life insurance corporation of India and others v Smt. Kiran Sinha, AIR 1985 SC 1265 . It is urged by thelearned counsel for the corporation that the policy itself having been repudiated for a particular period viz. It is urged by thelearned counsel for the corporation that the policy itself having been repudiated for a particular period viz. , 1-7-1989 to 27-10-1989 and during that period the petitioner's husband having died, there is no policy alive at all and consequently, there is no obligation on the corporation to make payment. In view of this dispute raised by the corporation, it is contended, this court cannot grant any reliefs and it would be appropriate to relegate the parlies, if at all, to seek reliefs before a civil court. It is also urged that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the corporation and on that ground also, the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs. The contract being only between the company and the corporation, though for the benefit of its employees, does not entitle the petitioner to make any claim and consequently, it is submitted that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. ( 3 ) SO far as the contention urged by the learned counsel by placing reliance on kiran sinha 's case, I am afraid, the said decision does not set out any principle. All that is noticed in that decision is, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the court ought not to have directed payment of money claimed under the insurance policy in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the only remedy available to the claimant therein was by way of a civil suit. It is no doubt true that this court normally docs not entertain cases where parties can obtain reliefs at the hands of the civil court and particularly when there is a disputed question of fact and which needs investigation, the parties are relegated to avail of those remedies. But it is not a rigid Rule that this court cannot grant any relief where relief can also be obtained by way of a suit. If there is no disputed question of fact, but only application of law arises in a case, this court can certainly examine the matter and give relief. But it is not a rigid Rule that this court cannot grant any relief where relief can also be obtained by way of a suit. If there is no disputed question of fact, but only application of law arises in a case, this court can certainly examine the matter and give relief. In this case, what falls for consideration is only interpretation and application of the terms of master policy and there is no dispute on any question of fact hence, I do not think the corporation can rely upon the decision in kiran sinha's case to contend that no relief should be granted to the petitioner and consequently, that contention is rejected. ( 4 ) SO far as the other contention urged on behalf of the corporation that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the corporation but only between the company and the corporation and therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner does not appeal to me at all. Indeed when the policy itself makes it clear that the beneficiaries under the policy are the employees or their heirs, the policy itself is for their benefit under which the payments will have to be made by the corporation. Although it is a Rule of english law that normally a stranger to consideration or contract cannot bring a legal action, Indian law is quite different. Section 2 (a) of the Contract Act while defining 'consideration' includes the words the promisee or any other person' and that clearly shows that a stranger to consideration can sue. When the statute is so dear, no precedent is required to be referred to in support thereof. On the proposition that a stranger to a contract cannot sue, Indian law is also same as english law but there are recognised exceptions such as insurance contracts which are fiduciary in nature and a beneficiary under such a contract can sue for enforcement of that contract. In Khirod Behari Dittt v Mangobinda and others, AIR 1934 Calcutta 682, it was held that where a contract is made for the benefit of a third person, there may be equity for the third person to sue upon the contract. In Khirod Behari Dittt v Mangobinda and others, AIR 1934 Calcutta 682, it was held that where a contract is made for the benefit of a third person, there may be equity for the third person to sue upon the contract. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the corporationon the merits of the matter, it is necessary to examine the rules relating to group insurance and the policy made thereunder. Under the definitions, it is made clear that the 'effective dale' on which the policy takes effect is 1st day of july, 1986 and the 'annual renewal date' is 1st july, 1987 and 1st day of July in each year. The 'entry date' is defined as: "entry date" shall mean: a) in relation to original members the effective date and b) in relation to new members admitted to the scheme after the effective dale, the first day of the month which is coincident with or immediately next follows the date on which they become eligible". "renewal dale" is defined as: "renewal date" shall mean in relation to the member the 1st day of July in each year subsequent to the entry date". 6. the relevant general conditions of the policy reads as follows: "xx xx xx. 4 (a) the premium payable for the assurance effected hereunder shall be single premiums calculated as in paragraphs (b) and (c) below and will be payable on the effective date and on each subsequent annual renewal dale or within 30 days thereafter. B) the total premium due under this policy on the effective date or on any subsequent annual renewal dale shall be calculated according to (i) the total number of members in service on the effective date or on the relevant annual renewal date and () the premiums payable in respect of the member in accordance with part ii of the schedule. C) in respect of eligible employees becoming members after the effective date and members reaching the terminal date or leaving service or dying before the terminal date, the premium shall be adjusted as on the annual renewal date which coincides with or next follows the event by the appropriate amounts at the prevalent rates. Xx xx xx. 7. C) in respect of eligible employees becoming members after the effective date and members reaching the terminal date or leaving service or dying before the terminal date, the premium shall be adjusted as on the annual renewal date which coincides with or next follows the event by the appropriate amounts at the prevalent rates. Xx xx xx. 7. It shall be a condition of employment for all future employees that they must become members thereof on the respective entry dates which coincides with or which immediately next follow the dates on which they become eligible employees and the grantees shall take effective steps to ensure that they do so. In the event of any breach of this condition, the corporation shall be entitled to give written notice to the grantees determining forthwith the rights of the grantees to pay any further premiums thereunder. 8. Every employee shall become entitled to the benefits under the policy as from the entry date on which be first becomes an eligible employee or (subject to the consent of the grantees and the corporation and to production at his own cost if so required by the corporation, of evidence of health in the form and manner prescribed by the corporation) as from any subsequent entry date. Xx xx xx. 11. If the grantees do not renew this policy or any annual renewal date by paying the premiums then falling due or within 30 days following the said date (or within such extended time as the corporation may allow) the grantees shall (unless the corporation otherwise agree) be deemed to have discontinued payment of premiums hereunder and shall not be entitled to resume payment except with the consent of the corporation. The corporation shall be entitled to notify the members of such discontinuance". Clause (9), of part ii of the schedule reads as follows: 9. When the assurance the assurance on the life of the member shall ter- terminates minate on the happening of any of the following events: a) i) discontinuance of payment of premiums relating to the assurance ii) discontinuance of payment of premiums relating to the group superannuation scheme or b) the member reaching terminal date or c) the member ceasing to be in the service. " a careful reading of the scheme and the policy will make it clear that the premium payable is a single premium calculated in the manner provided under clause (4) of the general conditions which provides that the payment shall be made with reference to the total number of members in service on the effective date or on the relevant annual renewal date and in respect of eligible employees dying before the terminal date, the premium is to be adjusted as on the annual renewal date which coincides with or next follows the event by the appropriate amounts at the prevalent rates. ( 6 ) IN the present case, premium was due to be paid on 1 ST july, 1989. Jt was paid on 27-10-1989. It was accepted with effect from 27-10-1989 as stated in the statement of objections. The question that arise for consideration is whether it is permissible for the corporation to have split that premium in the manner it is done by refunding the proportionate premium so far as the petitioner's husband is concerned and accepting the premium with effect from 27-10-1989 to 30-6-1990. The policy cannot be split in the manner suggested by the corporation because the premium payable is a single premium with reference to group insurance and not any particular individual as such. But the rate at which the premium has to be paid is with reference to the number of members who become eligible as provided under the relevant rules and the policy. The date with reference to which payment is to be made is the annual renewal date and no other date. Therefore, the question to be considered now is what is the effect of delayed payment made by the company. That is taken care of in clause 11 of the general conditions which is already set out earlier. it provides that if the policy is not renewed on any annual renewal date by paying the premium falling due thereof or within 30 days following the said date or within such extended time the corporation may allow, the grantees shall be deemed to have discontinued the premium unless the corporation otherwise consents shall not be entitled to resume the payment except with the consent of the corporation. ( 7 ) THE sequence of events are that the company made the premium on 27-10-1989 and also informed that one of its employees had died on 21-10-1989. It is only on 20-3-1990 the corporation sought to refund a portion of the premium which is proportionate to the premium attributable to the petitioner's husband: under the scheme of the policy as referred to earlier, the payment of the premium is with reference to the entire group of employees and not with reference to any particular member. But once the premium had been paid by the company and had been accepted by the corporation, it must be held that it is relatable only to the annual renewal date and no other date. It is not permissible under the terms of the policy to have adopted any other date with reference to which the corporation had accepted the premium. Clause 11 allows the corporation to exercise discretion in accepting the premium even on a date subsequent to the annual renewal date. When once it is accepted, it cannot be said that it has been accepted from a date other than for which the payment has been made. Indeed when discretion is conferred upon the authorities, particularly the authority which is a state for the purpose of Article 12 of the constitution, the same should be exercised in a manner which is not arbitrary and with a view to promote the object for which the power is conferred which undoubtedly should bear in mind the public interest and not individual or private gain, whim or caprice of any individual. ( 8 ) IN fact, in the present case, the stand of the corporation js difficult to appreciate because when the policy did not permit acceptance of the premium from any dale other than the annual renewal date, all that it could do was to extend the time for making payment of the premium. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the corporation (hat it was accepted only with effect from 27-10-1989 cannot stand scrutiny. If this position is correct, then it must be held that on the dale when the petitioner's husband died there was a valid policy in force. If that is so, petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the corporation (hat it was accepted only with effect from 27-10-1989 cannot stand scrutiny. If this position is correct, then it must be held that on the dale when the petitioner's husband died there was a valid policy in force. If that is so, petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for. Petition is therefore allowed and the 2nd respondent-corpora lion is directed to make the payments due under the policy within a period of three months from today. Considering the nature of the stand taken by the corporation, I think it appropriate to award interest on the amounts payable to the petitioner. The interest shall be paid at 18% per annum on the amounts from the date it became due till payment. Petition allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. --- *** --- .