ORDER :— This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-the Branch Manager and General Manager of the Kota Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. against the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Baran dated 6.6.2007 by which the petitioners have been required to pay to the respondent-claimant the amount of Rs.50,000 along with interest towards the insurance coverage for death claim of her husband. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has absolved the respondent No.3-insurance company of his liability on the premise that the premium was to be made on 1.9.1999, but the petitioner-bank delayed and made such payment belatedly on 23.9.2014. Reliance has been made on the provisions of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat has held that the insurance company cannot be held liable till it has not received the amount of premium. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the respondent-claimant took a loan from the bank along with insurance policy for personal accident under the Government scheme meant for Kisan Credit Card holders and paid Rs.15/- to Simli Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Baran. The insurance coverage was of Rs.50,000 for a period of one year. Similar insurance coverage was extended to several other farmers, who were issued Kishan Credit Card. Petitioner-bank had collected premium from such farmers through Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti and sent consolidated cheque of other premium amounts to the respondent. It was a combined amount of several farmers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation & Ors. v. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker, AIR 2005 SC 3087 and submits that present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment. It was held therein that employer, though not agent of LIC qua its Regulations, it can be inferred that employer has implied authority to act as agent of LIC in view of Section 186 of Contract Act. Failure on the part of employer to make payment of premium would not disentitle the employer to the payment of assured amount. 5. Shri Sanjay Singhal, learned counsel for the claimant and Shri Ravindra Tomar on behalf of Shri Rishipal Agarwal, learned counsel for the insurance company have opposed the writ petition. 6. Failure on the part of employer to make payment of premium would not disentitle the employer to the payment of assured amount. 5. Shri Sanjay Singhal, learned counsel for the claimant and Shri Ravindra Tomar on behalf of Shri Rishipal Agarwal, learned counsel for the insurance company have opposed the writ petition. 6. Shri Ravindra Tomar on behalf of Shri Rishipal Agarwal, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that there was grace period of 15 days in payment of premium and that 15 days has expired on 15.12.2004, therefore, for any delay beyond that period, no condonation can be made. The insurance company cannot be held liable to make payment of the sum claimed, unless it has received the premium in advance in terms of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the impugned order as well as cited judgment. 8. In the cited judgment of Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation ( AIR 2005 SC 3087 ), supra, there was a contract of insurance between the employer and the LIC with regard to its employees. The employer in terms of this tripartite arrangement accepted the responsibility of deducting the premium from the salaries of the employees and send the same to the Corporation by one cheque. The employer failed to deduct premium from salary of concerned employee and question arose whether LIC is liable to pay the assured amount. In those facts, it was held as under: 'An agency can be created expressly or by necessary implication. It may be true that the employers in response to the proposal made by the Corporation stated that they would act as agents of their employers and not that of the Corporation. But the expression' agent— in such circumstances may not mean to be one within the meaning of the Life Insurance Corporation of Indian (Agent) Regulation, 1972 made in terms of Section 49 of the Act, but would mean an agent in ordinary sense of the term.' 9. The aforesaid judgment would squarely apply to the present case because in this case also farmers who were extended the coverage of life insurance were not employees of the petitioner-bank, but they were loanees and holders of the Kisan Credit Card. They were granted such insurance coverage under the scheme of the Government. The aforesaid judgment would squarely apply to the present case because in this case also farmers who were extended the coverage of life insurance were not employees of the petitioner-bank, but they were loanees and holders of the Kisan Credit Card. They were granted such insurance coverage under the scheme of the Government. The premium was collected through various Gramin Seva Sahakari Samities and eventually, as per its contract with the insurance company, the petitioner-bank took the responsibility to deposit such premium with the insurance company after receiving it through the Gramin Seva Sahakari Samities. Although, otherwise the farmers themselves as individuals insured were liable to pay the premium, but this responsibility was given to the petitioner-bank for deposit of the premium with the insurance company. In order to do so, the petitioner-bank has collected the amount of premium of several farmers through different societies. The dates with regard to deposit of such premium in the case of different farmers would vary, but nevertheless, it has received such amount to be deposited with the respondent-insurance company. According to the ratio of aforesaid judgment, it can be inferred that bank had implied authority to act as agent of LIC in view of Section 186 of Contract Act, thus making the insurance company liable to pay the sum assured to the farmers or the claimant concerned. 10. In view of above, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The insurance company is held liable to pay the amount of Rs.50,000 together with interest as directed by the trial court within a period of two months. Petition allowed.