JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 1.8.08 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Churu, whereby an application preferred by the respondent no. 1 under Section 22 C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of the amount of 33 installments deposited by the respondent no.1 towards the premium of insurance policy obtained by him. That apart, it is ordered that if the payment is not made within a period of two months, the amount payable shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the payment is made. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that the respondent-Rupesh Kumar obtained a Life Insurance Policy under the Salary Saving Scheme, commencing from 14.2.2000. The premium payable was Rs. 2702/- per month. The amount of premium was used to be deducted from the salary of the respondent and deposited with the petitioner. The premium was deposited upto the month of May, 2001. However, the respondent failed to deposit the premium for the period from June, 2001 to March, 2002. As a matter of fact, during the period from 28.5.01 to 28.2.02, the respondent was under suspension and therefore, the amount of premium was not deducted and deposited by the respondent's employer. Thereafter, the premium was deposited for the period from April, 02 to February, 04. It is submitted that from the month of March, 04, the amount was not deducted and deposited on the request being made by the respondent. 3. Since, the respondent had failed to pay premium continuously for a period of three years, the policy stood lapsed and the respondent was denied the payment of the amount of premium deposited as also the profit earned. In these circumstances, the respondent preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22 C of the Act with the prayer to direct the petitioner herein to refund the amount of premium deposited by him during the period from August, 2000 to May, 2001 and April, 2002 to February, 2004 alongwith interest. It was alternatively prayed that the petitioner herein may be directed to revive the policy. 4. It was alternatively prayed that the petitioner herein may be directed to revive the policy. 4. The claim was contested by the petitioner taking the stand that the respondent having failed to deposit the premium for the period June, 2001 to March, 2002 and from March, 2004 to July,2005, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, he is not entitled for refund of the amount of premium already deposited. 5. It was contended on behalf of the respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat that during the period from 22th May, 2001 to 28th February, 2002, he remained under suspension and therefore, the amount of premium was not deducted by the employer from his salary and deposited with the insurer and thus, he cannot be penalised for no fault on his part. 6. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Permanent Lok Adalat arrived at the finding that the respondent was not at fault in not depositing the premium and therefore, the amount of 33 installments deposited by him towards the premium deserves to be refunded to him. Accordingly, the application has been allowed in the terms indicated above. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Permanent Lok Adalat has failed to appreciate that the insurance contract is a bilateral contract and therefore, both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the maturity value or surrender value is payable only if the policy has run at least for three years. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the respondent failed to deposit the premium and therefore, the policy stood lapsed. On being asked by the court that if the policy stood lapsed on account of failure of the respondent in depositing the amount of premium for the months June, 2001 to March, 2002, why the premium for the months from April, 2002 to February, 2004 was accepted by the petitioner, learned counsel submitted that the amount so deposited must have been kept in suspense account. 8. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent while reiterating the stand taken before the Permanent Lok Adalat, submitted that the respondent was not at fault in not depositing the amount of premium regularly. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent cannot be penalised for non fault on his part. 8. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent while reiterating the stand taken before the Permanent Lok Adalat, submitted that the respondent was not at fault in not depositing the amount of premium regularly. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent cannot be penalised for non fault on his part. It is submitted that the order impugned passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in directing the petitioner to refund the amount of premium deposited by the respondent is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Indisputably, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent was required to make payment of premium every month with a grace period of 15 days. It is not in dispute that the respondent failed to deposit the premium for the months from June, 2001 to March, 2002 and thereafter, from March, 2004 onwards. It is to be noticed that as per condition no. 3 of the policy, the lapsed policy could have been revived during the life time of the life assured but within period of five years from the date of the first unpaid premium and before the date of maturity on submission of proof of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the payment of all the amount of premium together with interest at such rate as may be fixed by the Corporation from time to time compounding half yearly. It is true that the Corporation has reserved the right to accept or not accept revival of discontinued policy but if any such request is made, the Corporation is under an obligation to consider the same in terms of the conditions of the policy. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not made a request for revival of the policy. Be that as it may, even according to the petitioner, on account of failure of the respondent to deposit the amount of premium for the period June, 2001 to March, 2002, the policy stood lapsed. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for the petitioner to accept the payment of premium for the period subsequent thereto, till the month of February, 2004. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for the petitioner to accept the payment of premium for the period subsequent thereto, till the month of February, 2004. In any case, if the amount so deposited was accepted, the same could not have been retained by the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this court, the action of the petitioner in retaining the amount deposited by the respondent towards the premium for the period from April, 2002 to February, 2004 amounts to unjust enrichment and thus, at least, the amount for the said period deserves to be refunded to the respondent. 11. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall make payment of the amount of premium deposited by the respondent for the period from April, 2002 to February, 2004 alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of the order impugned passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, till the payment is made. The order impugned passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall stand modified accordingly. The amount payable in terms of the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, modified as aforesaid, shall be paid to the respondent within a period of two months, failing which the amount payable shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. No order as to costs.