Honble MEENA, J.–By this special appeal the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 3.8.89 of learned Single Judge, whereby he has dismissed the first appeal of appellant. (2). The facts in short are that the appellant Madan Lal Mishra married with Sushila Mishra. She born on 1.7.1945. On 10th November, 1972 a proposal for joint life insurance for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the life of appellant and Smt. Sushila Mishra was submitted to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The proposal was accepted and joint life insurance policy bearing No. 25562093 dated 14.12.1972 was issued by respondent No.1, Life Insurance Corporation to appellant and his wife Smt. Sushila Mishra. The wife of appellant Smt. Sushila Mishra expired on 24.2.1974, in Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer. (3). The plaintiff submitted a claim before respondent No. 2 on 23.3.1974. After some correspondence, respondent No.2 by his letter dated 15-16th December, 1976 repudiated all liability of the Corporation under the said joint insurance policy on the ground that the deceased Sushila Mishra had made deliberate mis-statement and had withheld material information from the Corporation regarding her health at the time of effecting assurance. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the appellant preferred an appeal on 24.11.1978 to the Chairman of Corporation. It was pleaded that the decision of the Chairman of Corporation was conveyed to the appellant by respondent No.2 by his letter dated 22-24th July. 1980 stating there in that there was no change in their earlier decision of repudiation. The earlier decision of repudiation dated 15-16th December, 1976 merged into the subsequent decision of the Chairman of Corporation dated 22-24th July, 1980. It was alleged by the plaintiff that Smt. Sushila Mishra had no abortion or miscarriage prior to 10.11.1972, but had either full term or premature delivery. He, therefore, claimed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 10,250/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till recovery of the amount. (4). In the Judgement learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Ajmer held that there was no fraudulent suppression of any material fact by the appellant or by his deceased wife. but on the question of limitation, learned Addl. District Judge held that the limitation started to run when respondent No.2 by his letter dated 15-16th December, 1976 had repuduated the claim of the appellant. (5). District Judge No.2, Ajmer held that there was no fraudulent suppression of any material fact by the appellant or by his deceased wife. but on the question of limitation, learned Addl. District Judge held that the limitation started to run when respondent No.2 by his letter dated 15-16th December, 1976 had repuduated the claim of the appellant. (5). In appeal, learned Single Judge has concurred with the finding of trial Court that there was no suppression of any material fact by the appellant or his wife. Thus the issue No.1 again has been decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendants. On the question of limitation also, learned Single Judge affirmed the view taken by trial court. (6). The facts are not in dispute that Life Insurance Corporation, respondent No.1, issued the policy No. 25562093 dated 15-16th December, 1972 to appellant and his wife for joint life insurance. The wife of the appellant Smt. Sushila Mishra expired on 24.2.74. The claim was made under the aforesaid policy by the appellant. His claim was repudiated vide letter Ex.-36 dated 15-56th December, 1976 on the ground that she had made deliberate mis-statement and had withheld material information regarding her health. Thereafter, a notice was given in the year 1978 to respondents that his wife expired on 24.2.74, but still the amount of policy on death of her wife has not been given to him. In reply to that Personal Divisional Manager, LIC Ajmer, wrote to counsel for appellant that the decision has already been taken and that information has been given to Madan Lal Mishra. Thereafter, the appellant wrote letter to LIC, India, Central Office, Bombay claiming that his claim has wrongly been ignored. There was no suppression of any fact by the appellant or his wife. Vide letter dated 21.2.80 requested the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch Office Beawar to depute some dependable perso n to collect certified copies of leave applications and medical certificates for the period of which leave availed by late Smt. Sushila Mishra. In March, 1980 the required detail was communicated. Ultimately, the decision of Central Office Bombay was communicted to appellant that there was no change in earlier decision of repudiation. (7). In March, 1980 the required detail was communicated. Ultimately, the decision of Central Office Bombay was communicted to appellant that there was no change in earlier decision of repudiation. (7). Thereafter, the appellant filed the suit, in the court of District Judge, Ajmer, The finding of fact has been given that there was no suppression of any material fact regarding health and family history by the appellant or his wife, but the suit is barred by limitation as the claim was rejected in 1976. The suit can be filed within 3 years. There is no dispute on the fact that suit has been filed on 29.6.81 after expiry of the period of three years. (8). The claim of the appellant is that there is a provision in Manual of Divisional Offices to file review petition before Review Committee at Central Office, Bombay. The appellant filed review petition before the Review Committee, who examined the claim of plaintiff. (9). The trial court as well as learned Single Judge has not disputed this fact that there was a provision in the Manual of Divisional Offices that in case of repudiation of claim, the claimant can approach before the Review Committee, established at Head Office of LIC, India at Bombay. In case the Committee gives relief of any claimant that claim is to be paid by LIC, India. (10). The suit as well as the first appeal has been dismissed only on the ground that there is no statutory Rule or any provision in the Section which provides appeal against the order of Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Ajmer. Admittedly, there is no Rule or provision of appeal against the order of Senior Divisional Manager. But under the Manual of Life Insurance Corporation of India, it is provided that if the claim is repudiated by Divisional Office, the claimant can approach before Review Committee, under the administrative instructions. The decision of Review Committee is being given effect by the respondents. (11). In case of Union of India and others vs. R. Narasimhan (1), their Lordships of Supreme Court of India have observed as under:– ``Thus the area of operation of para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual is different from that of clauses (h) and (k) of Rule 2046 of the Rules. Para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual should be treated as supplementry to Rule 2046 of the Rules. Para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual should be treated as supplementry to Rule 2046 of the Rules. The said para which has been framed by the Union Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 73 of the Constitution should be given due effect since there is no statutory provision or a rule framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which is inconsistent with it. (12). Admittedly there is no rule or provision under the Act inconsistent to these administrative instructions, whereby Review Committee in Central Office, Bombay has been established. The Review Committee, which considers the representations against the orders of Divisional Manager and the decision of Review Committee is biding and previal over the decision of Sr. Divisional Manager. There- fore, where there is no Rule or provision under the Act, the appellant has rightly filed the representation before the Review Committee, at Central Office Bombay, which has been established under executive instructions and not contrary to Rules, but the same is supplementary to Rule. Finally the claim of appellant was rejected in the year 1980. Thereafter, the appellant preferred the suit in the year 1981, that is within one year and thus within time limit. (13). Therefore, when Life Insurance Corporation, India on the one hand has provided a forum of appeal against the order of Divisional Officer, they cannot go back and deny the claim of claimant on the ground of limitation, Specially when concurrent finding of the trial court as well as first appellante court is that neither the appellant nor deceased has suppressed the material facts regarding the health and family history. The appellant preferred the appeal before the Review Committee which is entitled under the administrative instructions and the Review Committee has acted upon. Therefore, the limitation will start from the date of order of Review Committee. (14) In the result, the special appeal is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.1.87 and 3.8.89 are quashed. The suit of the appellant is decreed. The appellant will be entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the suit on the amount payable to him by respondents, till payment is made. The amount be paid to appellant within four months from the date of this order. Cost made easy.