ORDER ORAL : Justice Surinder Sarup (Retd.), President. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, Camp at Solan, dated 22.9.2000, whereby the appellant-life Insurance Corporation of India has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 62,754/ , being the amount for which the deceased Dharam Singh Katoch was insured, to respondents No. 1 to 3 (being the legal heirs of the deceased) with interest @15% per annum from the date of the death i.e. 4.3.1996 till realisation, alongwith litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The circumstances leading to the filing of the compliant are that the deceased was working with respondent No. 4 - M/s Cosmo Ferrite Limited in their Unit at Jabli. Respondent No. 4 negotiated with the appellant to get its workers insured with it and this resulted in a contract between them for comprehensive insurance of the workers. The terms and conditions were that after taking the requisite premium from the monthly wages/salaries of its workers, the employer i.e. M/s Cosmo Ferrite Limited will pay the same to the appellant within stipulated period, and as is usual in the case of death of any worker, the policy amount would be paid to his legal heir. In the resent case/the premium for the month of February, 1996 was due on 5.2.1996 and the period of grace of 15 days was also provided in the agreement/contract between the appellant and respondent No. 4, however, in that particular instance, the premium was paid beyond the days of grace, which was accepted unconditionally by the appellant. It may be stated here that the scheme by which the workers were insured as per the arrangement between the appellant and respondent No. 4 was the Salary Saving Scheme started with effect from 15.10.1994. Meanwhile, the worker, in question, i.e. Stiri Dharam Singh Katoch dieu on 4.3.1996 and the respondent No. 4, the employer, deposited the premium for the month of March, 1996 on 17.4.1996, which was also- accepted by the appellant. Them claim was made by respondent No. 1 for payment of policy amount under the said Scheme. The same was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the policy in respect of Shri Dharam Singh Katoch had lapsed. This led to the filing of the complaint. 3. The appellant in its reply took up the stand which has been referred to above. The same was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the policy in respect of Shri Dharam Singh Katoch had lapsed. This led to the filing of the complaint. 3. The appellant in its reply took up the stand which has been referred to above. Respondent No. 4, being the opposite party No. 2 in the complaint, in its separate reply, stated that it was the duty of the deceased to get the amount of premium deducted from his salary every month. Since he did not get it deducted, therefore, the premium was not paid in time. The reason for this, as stated in the reply of respondent No. 4, was that the deceased had taken Rs. 1500/- in advance on 25.1.1996. In nutshell, respondent No. 4 in his reply took up the plea that since the appellant accepted the amount of premium in March, 1996 without any objection, it was estopped from raising any legal objection to the effect that the policy had lapsed for non payment of 4fte premium. 4. The learned Forum below by its well reason order, contained in paras 8 to 10 of the impugned order, has rightly come to the conclusion that the salary saving scheme being an arrangement/contract between the appellant and respondent No. 4, and there being nothing on the record to show that the deceased Shri Dharam Singh Katoch was ever made aware of the fact that his employer was not acting as an agent for the appellant, the latter could not repudiate the claim on account of the untenable ground that the penalty had lapsed. 5. In fairness to the learned Counsel for the appellant, he has placed reliance on two decisions, the first one is by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Smt. Usha v. LIC & Ors., 1(1999) CPJ 535. That was a case in which the Life Insurance Corporation had repudiated the claim on behalf of a insured employee who was working as Leader in Indian Airlines, in pursuance of a policy known as 20 years money back policy. The insured leader remained absent from duty and was stated to have been murdered. That was a case in which the Life Insurance Corporation had repudiated the claim on behalf of a insured employee who was working as Leader in Indian Airlines, in pursuance of a policy known as 20 years money back policy. The insured leader remained absent from duty and was stated to have been murdered. The stand of the Life Insurance Corporation in that case that the policy had lapsed on account of non-receipt of premium, was upheld by the Delhi State Commission by holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Life Insurance Corporation and it was not liable, it is manifest that the facts are entirely different here. It is nobodys case that the deceased Dharam Singh Katoch had remained absent from his duty during his life time. Moreover, in that case, the premium had not been received, whereas in the present case, the appellant accepted the instalments of premium for the months of February & March, 1996, even though the same was not paid by the respondent No. 4 within i.e. the stipulated period. In other words, it acquiesced in the matter by accepting the premium and legally could not repudiate the claim on behalf of the respondent No. 1. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra and others, AIR 2001 SC 1197. That was a case in which the provisions of Section 65 of he Contract Act and Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act were under consideration and the same has no hearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 has cited before us a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi and another, AIR 2000 SC 43. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 has cited before us a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi and another, AIR 2000 SC 43. In that case, it has clearly been laid down that where in the case of Salary Saving Scheme of Life Insurance Corporation, there was an agreement between the employer and the Life Insurance Corporation to deduct premium from salary and remit it to Life Insurance Corporation and the employee was not knowing what was the arrangement between the two, though it could be said that the employer was agent of Life Insurance Corporation for employees, and premium was being collected by the employer by a deduction from the salary of the employee, but was not remitted to Life Insurance Corporation, in the eventuality of the death of the employee the Life Insurance Corporation was held to be liable to pay the amount of insurance to the representatives of employee. That was a case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is almost similar on facts to the present case. Accordingly the said decision of the highest Court of the land clinches the matter against the appellant and in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3. However, we find on the facts and circumstances of the case that the rate of interest of 15% deserves to be reduced to 12% per annum from the date of death of Shri Dharam Singh Katoch i.e. 4.3.1996. The impugned order is modified to that extent and this appeal is disposed of accordingly.