N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) IN the instant case, petitioner has sought for quashing the letter/order dated 15. 10. 2001 and letter dated 11. 2. 2002 vide annexures E and H respectively, both passed by respondent, as the same are arbitrary and illegal and hence unsustainable in law. Further petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondent to settle the claim of the petitioner and make payment of Rs. 75,000 due under the Master Policy No. GSLI 73777 on account of the death of her husband S. G. Nanjundappa forthwith. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of one S. G. Nanjundappa who was working as headmaster at Sri Basavarajendra Demonstration High school, Arasikere, Hassan District which is a government-aided school. While he was so working, he was also a member of employees Group Savings-Linked Insurance scheme vide Master Policy No. GSLI 73777 issued by the respondent and was regularly contributing his premium amount of Rs. 75 per month towards the said policy along with other members of the scheme who are staff working in the same school. The said scheme consists of 12 members. Under the said scheme, every member has to contribute the premium amount and the same was being deducted in their monthly salary towards the said policy. Petitioner's husband was a headmaster-cum-drawing officer of the said school and he used to prepare monthly salary bill of the staff and send it to the treasury. After consolidating the premium amount of all the twelve members including himself, he used to send the premium by way of demand draft to the respondent every month regularly towards the said Master Policy for which lic used to issue receipts. When things stood thus, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 5. 8. 2001 while he was in service. The school management in its meeting held on 24. 8. 2001 has decided to promote one Prasanna Kumar, assistant teacher, who was the seniormost teacher as the headmaster of the said school in the place which fell vacant on account of the death of the husband of petitioner, Nanjundappa. After the death of the husband of petitioner, the petitioner submitted her claim for payment of insurance amount of rs. 75,000 due under the said Group Insurance scheme vide Master Policy No. GSLI 73777. After the death of the husband of petitioner, the petitioner submitted her claim for payment of insurance amount of rs. 75,000 due under the said Group Insurance scheme vide Master Policy No. GSLI 73777. The headmaster of the said school, who was also the drawing officer of the said school communicated on 4. 9. 2001 to the respondent insurance company intimating the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, enclosing therewith the death certificate of late S. G. Nanjundappa and requested the insurance company to release the amount guaranteed under the master policy in favour of petitioner. Respondent insurance company instead of considering the claim of the claimant on account of the death of the husband of petitioner, S. G. Nanjundappa, has sent a communication dated 5. 10. 2001 vide annexure E, informing the headmaster of the said school that the school has not remitted the premium due for the month of July 2001 and the premium which was due for payment on or before 27. 7. 2001 was received on 8. 9. 2001 and, therefore, life cover amount cannot be settled. In reply to the same, headmaster of the school has sent a communication to respondent insurance company on 27. 12. 2001 vide annexure G, stating that, on account of the death of the earlier headmaster,. e. , late S. G. Nanjundappa, no other headmaster was appointed till 25. 8. 2001 and that the new headmaster has taken over the charge only on 27. 8. 2001 and purchased the demand draft on 4. 9. 2001 and sent the same to the insurance company. The policy amount has been forwarded in respect of all the twelve employees by giving detailed explanation for delayed payment. The respondent insurance company, instead of accepting explanation offered by the new headmaster of the school, has issued the impugned communication dated 11. 2. 2002 vide annexure H stating that the school is very irregular in remittance of monthly premiums and that there is clear delay of two to three months. Further, it is stated that as on the date of death of S. G. Nanjundappa, the premium for the month of june 2001 only was received and the policy is in a lapsed condition and when the policy is in a lapsed condition, death claim cannot be settled as per policy conditions. Further, it is stated that as on the date of death of S. G. Nanjundappa, the premium for the month of june 2001 only was received and the policy is in a lapsed condition and when the policy is in a lapsed condition, death claim cannot be settled as per policy conditions. Further, they have stated that they have settled a sum of Rs. 1,590 on 20. 10. 2001 being the withdrawal benefit available to the policyholder. Being aggrieved by the impugned communications vide annexures e and H referred above, the petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. ( 3 ) I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondent insurance company. After careful perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned communications vide annexures E and H issued by respondent insurance company, it is manifest on the face of the said communications that the respondent has committed a grave error and material irregularity in issuing the said communications. It is significant to note here itself that as per the communication dated 11. 2. 2001 vide annexure H, the said authority has given the details in a tabular form by mentioning the premium for the months, dates on which the same is sent by school and the dates on which the premium is received by LIC. After careful perusal of the said Table mentioning item nos. 1 to 4, it can be seen that premium for the months of February, March and April 2001 are sent on 8. 6. 2001 and the same is received by 12. 6. 2001, the premium for the month of May 2001 is received by insurance company on 29. 6. 2001 and the premium for the month of June 2001 is received by the insurance company on 4. 8. 2001. This Table makes amply clear that there is delay only in respect of the months of January to April 2001 and that in spite of the said delay, the premium has been accepted by the company. Once they have accepted the delayed premium without any resistance at the time, it is not now open for insurance company to take a stand that the party is irregular in remittance of premium amount and delay has occurred. Once they have accepted the delayed premium without any resistance at the time, it is not now open for insurance company to take a stand that the party is irregular in remittance of premium amount and delay has occurred. The reference given by insurance company in a tabular form itself proves beyond all reasonable doubts that they have accepted the premium paid on behalf of the husband of petitioner along with other staff members of the school. Because this is a group insurance, the premium is forwarded by the headmaster of the school being the drawing officer. It is not fair on the part of respondent in taking hypertechnical objections stating that the premium has not been received within the prescribed period. If that is the case, they might have intimated the school at that time itself, before accepting the same. If the policy has been lapsed, then, the insurance company ought not to have received the delayed premium forwarded by the school. Once they have accepted premium, now it is not open for the respondent to take the stand that the policy has lapsed and the petitioner is not entitled for claim of compensation. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned communications issued by the respondent vide annexures E and H are liable to be set aside. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in L.. C. of India v. K. Rama Iyer, 2004 ACJ 591 (Karnataka), wherein it is held by the Division bench of this court that the employer acts only as an agent to collect the premium from its employees and, therefore, the default in payment of premium cannot be attributed to the deceased and it cannot affect the rights of the claimant claiming the benefits and the appeal by the insurance company was dismissed with a direction to the insurance company to settle the claim of the claimant in terms of the directions issued by the learned single Judge of this court. If the ratio of the aforesaid Division bench judgment is taken into consideration and applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, in my considered view, petitioner is entitled to claim the compensation amount covered under the policy of her husband. If the ratio of the aforesaid Division bench judgment is taken into consideration and applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, in my considered view, petitioner is entitled to claim the compensation amount covered under the policy of her husband. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned communications dated 15. 10. 2001 and 11. 2. 2002 vide annexures E and H respectively, both issued by respondent are hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to respondent with a direction to settle the claim of the claimant-petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 5 ) WITH these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioner succeeds and stands disposed of.