JUDGMENT Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is before the Court assailing the award dated 6 March 2014 passed by the first respondent, Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat, Meerut, in PLA No. 112 of 2013, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay the entire sum due on the life insurance policy alongwith 9% interest from the date on which the petition was presented. 3. The facts, briefly stated, is that the second respondent, Dharam Pal Singh on 23 March 1995 had taken a Money Back Policy with profits for 25 years for his son Sanjeev Kumar Singh. The sum assured was for Rs. 1 lac. It is not in dispute, inter se, parties that the premium was paid at regular intervals by the second respondent. On 23 November 2013, the second respondent informed the LIC that his son has gone missing on 6 July 2005 and since more than 8 years have lapsed, therefore, a presumption of death be drawn, consequently, the sum due on the policy alongwith accrued bonus be paid. 4. Petitioner LIC rejected the claim of the second respondent on a plea that civil death can be presumed only after a declaration by a Court and in absence of a decree, of the competent Court, the claim, therefore, was rejected. Aggrieved, petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat which upon considering the material available on record and the witnesses, passed the impugned award. 5. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in view of the provisions contained under Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act the presumption as to the death would arise only on lapse of 7 years and would not by applying any logic or reasoning be permitted to raise after lapse of 7 years, and occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question is raised in a Court, Tribunal or before any Authority who is directed upon to decide, as to whether, the person is alive or dead. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum, in a legal proceedings, the occasion for raising the presumption does not arise. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Anuradha, 2004 (10) SCC 131. (LIC of India) 6. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum, in a legal proceedings, the occasion for raising the presumption does not arise. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Anuradha, 2004 (10) SCC 131. (LIC of India) 6. In rebuttal, Sri Prateek Kumar holding brief of Sri Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the son of the second respondent went missing in 2005 and after a lapse of 8 years the claim was raised with the LIC, thus, raising a presumption of civil death. Further, would submit that three issues was framed by the Lok Adalat: (i) as to whether, the son of the second respondent was heard of after 6 November 2005; (ii) as to whether, under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, the death of the son of second respondent can be presumed; (iii) as to whether, the Permanent Lok Adalat/Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare the death of the son of the second respondent. 7. In LIC of India the Supreme Court upon considering the provisions of Section 107 and 108 was of the opinion that neither Section 108 of the Evidence Act nor logic, reason or sense permit a presumption or assumption being drawn or made that the person not heard of for 7 years was dead on the date of his disappearance or soon after the date and time on which he was last seen. The only inference permissible to be drawn and posed on the presumption that the man was dead at the time when the question arose subject to a period of 7 years absence and being heard of having elapsed before that time. The period of 7 years would have to be counted backward from the date on which the question arose for determination. Accordingly, the Court held as follows: On the basis of the abovesaid authorities, we unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which we sum up in the following words. The law as to presumption of death remains the same whether in Common Law of England or in the statutory provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Accordingly, the Court held as follows: On the basis of the abovesaid authorities, we unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which we sum up in the following words. The law as to presumption of death remains the same whether in Common Law of England or in the statutory provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the scheme of Evidence Act, though Sections 107 and 108 are drafted as two Sections, in effect, Section 108 is an exception to the rule enacted in Section 107. The human life shown to be in existence, at a given point of time which according to Section 107 ought to be a point within 30 years calculated backwards from the date when the question arises, is presumed to continue to be living. The rule is subject to a proviso or exception as contained in Section 108. If the persons, who would have naturally and in the ordinary course of human affairs heard of the person in question, have not so heard of him for seven years the presumption raised under Section 107 ceases to operate. Section 107 has the effect of shifting the burden of proving that the person is dead on him who affirms the fact. Section 108, subject to its applicability being attracted, has the effect of shifting the burden of proof back on the one who asserts the fact of that person being alive. The presumption raised under Section 108 is a limited presumption confined only to presuming the factum of death of the person who’s life or death is in issue. Though it will be presumed that the person is dead but there is no presumption as to the date or time of death. There is no presumption as to the facts and circumstances under which the person may have died. The presumption as to death by reference to Section 108 would arise only on lapse of seven years and would not by applying any logic or reasoning be permitted to be raised on expiry of 6 years and 364 days or at any time short of it. An occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question is raised in a Court, Tribunal or before an authority who is called upon to decide as to whether a person is alive or dead. An occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question is raised in a Court, Tribunal or before an authority who is called upon to decide as to whether a person is alive or dead. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum and in any legal proceedings the occasion for raising the presumption does not arise. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputing that the Permanent Lok Adalat being a Tribunal was within its competence and jurisdiction to go into the question under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, therefore, at the best it can be said that the petitioner is entitled to the claim from the date of declaration of the death of the son of second respondent. The interest on the policy, therefore, is to be paid not from the date of the petition but from the date of such declaration. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent is not disputing the legal proposition in view of the decision rendered in LIC of India. 10. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 6 March 2014 passed by the first respondent in PLA No. 112 of 2013 is modified to the extent that the interest payable on the insured sum, at the rate of 9% shall be payable from the date of the award i.e. 6 March 2014 and not from the date of the petition. 11. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. 12. No cost.