ORDER Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the judgment and order dated 28.6.2003 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the claim of the claimant was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Tara Joshi, the mother of the complainant, has taken a Life Insurance Policy Master Plan for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. She was employed in PWD Department under opposite party No. 2 on the post of Beldar. The premium of the policy was paid by the opposite party No. 2. The insurance policy was taken in August, 1993 and a sum of Rs. 25.00 as premium was deducted each month from the salary of Smt. Tara Joshi. It is said that the premium was paid till May, 1999. During the service Smt. Tara Joshi died on 11.5.1999. Information was given to the opposite party but they did not prefer to make payment. It is deficiency in the service of the opposite party, hence the complaint was filed. 3. The Insurance Company admitted the insurance. It is said that the PWD Department only paid the premium. It is said that since the premium was not paid in time hence the policy lapsed and the paid-up value of Rs. 1,533/- was tried to be paid to the complainant. It is said that the insured died on 11.5.1999 and the premium due on 20.4.1999 was received in the office of the Insurance Company after 20.5.1999, which should have been received only before 20.4.1999. The opposite party No. 2, the PWD Department had also admitted the case and alleged that the premium is paid jointly for all the employees in a month. It is alleged that the information of death of the deceased was received late, therefore, the premium for the month of May, 1999 has also been paid to the Insurance Company. 70 instalments have been paid to the Insurance Company. The claim was lodged to the Insurance Company but it did not pay the entire amount covering the risk. The learned Forum heard both the parties and was of the opinion that there is deficiency in service of the insurance department, therefore, allowed the complaint. 4. Being aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. The learned Forum heard both the parties and was of the opinion that there is deficiency in service of the insurance department, therefore, allowed the complaint. 4. Being aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. The insurance of the complainant was from August, 1993. She died on 11.5.1999. Even if it is taken to be correct that the last premium was received late then also when 70 instalments have been paid up to May, 1999, only 69 instalments should have been paid. From August, 1993 to May, 1997 there are 68 months. But in this case 70 instalments have been paid. Merely by saying that the instalment was paid late, therefore, the policy has lapsed, the Insurance Company will get nothing. In the ruling reported in Volume V (2003) CLD 1020, the Madras State Commission in the matters of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. K. Kalyan Sundaram gave a very detailed judgment and it has been held that even if there is any delay on the part of the employer, the employer is an agent of the LIC, the complainant cannot be made to suffer for that reason. It is true that this ruling or the ruling of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi reported in III (1999) CPJ 15 (SC)=(1999) 8 SCC 239 is in respect of Electric Supply Undertaking but it is still true that the principles of law will remain applicable to everywhere. In this case the employer was deducting the salary and the employee was not paying it directly. The PWD, therefore, was the agent of the L.I.C. and if there is any delay by the agent, the principal will suffer and not the beneficiary. 6. We do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.