JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’] is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 08.09.2000, in O.S.No. 22 of 1998 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the defendant in the said Suit. During the pendency of the appeal, sole appellant died, her legal representatives are brought on record as appellants 2 to 4. 2. The Plaintiff filed the above said suit for recovery of Rs.19,15,000/- with future interest @ 18% p.a. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 22 of 1998, are as under: The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased P.Jayaprathapa Reddy. The said Jayaprathapa Reddy insured his life with defendant corporation branch at Nandyal, which comes under Kadapa Division of Andhra Pradesh. The policy number 651328741 was issued by the defendant corporation on 28.03.1993. The sum assured is Rs.5,00,000/-. The said policy is called as ‘Jeevanamitra’ policy and under the said policy, the sum payable is double the sum assured. The plaintiff is a nominee and sole legal heir of late Jayapratapa Reddy. Jayapratapa Reddy/insured died on 15.08.1993 due to vomitings and motions. The plaintiff being the nominee claimed the amount due under the aforesaid policy and she complied all the formalities for settling the claim, but there is no positive response from the defendant corporation, instead of issuing legal notice, the defendant did not respond the same, the plaintiff also approached the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool, despite of order passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurnool in the year 1995 under an order dated 12.12.1995 vide O.P.No. 229 of 1995 of District Consumer Forum, Kurnool, the respondent failed to comply the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and that the plaintiff is constrained to approach the civil Court in the year 1998 by way of filing the suit before the Court below. 5. The defendant filed a written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows: The defendant admitted about the issuance of policy to the insured for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. The defendant filed a written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows: The defendant admitted about the issuance of policy to the insured for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also admitted by the respondent that the plaintiff laid a claim before the defendant after the death of the insured, the defendant severely contended that inadvertently they have issued ‘Jeevanmitra’ policy to the policy holder. The plaintiff in her letter dated 23.09.1993 stated that her son Jayapratapa Reddy died. As it was a case of early claim, since the policy holder died within 4 months and 17 days from the date of commencement of risk under the policy, the defendant corporation has thoroughly investigated the matter and the policy holder suppressed the material facts and got the policy by playing fraud against the corporation. The defendant further pleaded that since the policy holder played fraud, the plaintiff is not entitled any claim amount from the defendant and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the deceased Jayaprathapa Reddy played fraud on the defendant’s company for obtaining Jeevan Mitra policy? (ii) Whether the defendant-company issued Jeevan Mitra Policy to the deceased P.Jayaprathapa Reddy due to bonafide mistake? (iii) Whether the repudiation of policy by the defendant is valid? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 to DW6 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon @12% p.a. from 01.03.1995 till the date of judgment and thereafter @6% p.a. till the date of realization vide its judgment dated 08.09.2000, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/ plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Smt Kopparthi Sumathi, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Bathula Rajkiran, learned counsel for respondent. 10. 9. Heard Smt Kopparthi Sumathi, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Bathula Rajkiran, learned counsel for respondent. 10. Having regard to the pleadings in the Suit and the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this court, the following points would arise for determination: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled suit claim of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 01.03.1995 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 11. Point Nos. 1 and 2: The undisputed facts are the deceased P.Jayaprathapa Reddy insured his life with defendant Life Insurance Corporation in its branch at Nandyal and obtained a policy bearing No. 651328741, dated 28.03.1993 and the total sum assured is Rs.5,00,000/-. The said policy is ‘Jeevanmitra’ policy and the sum payable is double the sum assured. It is not in dispute that Jayaprathapa Reddy died on 15.08.1993 and the plaintiff is his mother and so also nominee. The above facts are not at all disputed by the defendant Life Insurance Corporation. The contention of the defendant Corporation is that Jayapratapareddy applied for Jeevanmitra policy to the defendant corporation, Divisional Office, Kadapa and also obtained a policy and he was having deformity of right upper limb and right lower limb and by oversight its branch issued Jeevanmitra policy. As stated supra, the issuance of policy by the defendant corporation to the deceased Jayapratapa Reddy under the name of Jeevanmitra policy on 28.03.1993 and the sum assured is Rs.5,00,000/- is not at all disputed by the defendant. The death of Jayapratapa Reddy on 15.08.1993 is also not at all disputed by the corporation. It is also further not in dispute that the plaintiff is the mother of Jayapratapa Reddy and also nominee. 12. The material on record reveals that the deceased obtained a ‘Jeevanmitra’ policy on 28.03.1993, later on 15.08.1993 the said Jayapratapa Reddy died, the same is not in dispute. It is also further not in dispute that the plaintiff is the mother of Jayapratapa Reddy and also nominee. 12. The material on record reveals that the deceased obtained a ‘Jeevanmitra’ policy on 28.03.1993, later on 15.08.1993 the said Jayapratapa Reddy died, the same is not in dispute. On 04.02.1994, the plaintiff made a claim with the defendant Life Insurance Corporation for settlement being a nominee and she also sent several reminders to the defendant, finally she got issued a legal notice to the defendant corporation on 09.02.1995 to pay the entire amount within 15 days, failing which the corporation is liable to pay interest at 18% p.a. DW1, who is an official of defendant corporation categorically admitted in his cross examination itself that the defendant corporation received legal notice issued by the plaintiff. On considering the entire material on record, on appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from 01.03.1995 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization and the proportionate costs. No appeal or no cross objections are filed by the defendant/Life Insurance Corporation of India against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is now questioned by the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit only on the ground of restricting the interest of 12% p.a. instead of 18% p.a. and another ground is the appellant/plaintiff made a claim on 04.02.1994, instead of granting interest from 04.02.1994, the Court below ordered interest from 01.03.1995, which caused much injustice to the plaintiff. 13. On considering the entire material on record, the trial Judge decreed the suit for Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 01.03.1995 till the date of decree, the said finding is now questioned by the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit. Admittedly on 04.02.1994, the plaintiff made a claim being a nominee before the Life Insurance Corporation. On considering the entire material on record, the trial Judge decreed the suit for Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 01.03.1995 till the date of decree, the said finding is now questioned by the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit. Admittedly on 04.02.1994, the plaintiff made a claim being a nominee before the Life Insurance Corporation. The defendant corporation is not responding properly and the defendant dragged the matter and that the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 09.02.1995 under Ex.A6, after receipt of notice also, the defendant corporation has not responded the said notice and after waiting one year the plaintiff is constrained to approach District Consumer Forum, Kurnool and obtained an order under Ex.A3 in the year 1995 itself. The defendant Life Insurance Corporation did not complied the order passed by District Consumer Forum and that the plaintiff is constrained to approach the Civil Court in the year 1998, but till today no single paise is paid to the plaintiff by the defendant Life Insurance Corporation. Admittedly, the suit is instituted in the year 1998, after availing all opportunities, the plaintiff approached the civil Court as a last resort and the suit was decreed by the trial judge on 08.09.2000, till sofar, the judgment of the trial Court is not complied by the defendant Life Insurance Corporation. No appeal or no cross objections are filed by the defendant Life Insurance Corporation. Undoubtedly it causes much mental agony to the appellant/plaintiff. Inspite of 23 years has been elapsed from the date of decree passed by the trial Court no single paise is paid by the defendant Life Insurance Corporation to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is quite desirable to direct the defendant to pay interest of 12% p.a. from 04.02.1994 instead of 01.03.1995, on which date, the plaintiff made a claim before the Life Insurance Corporation till the date of decree. 14. Another ground urged by the appellant in the grounds of appeal is that the Court below restricted the rate of interest at 12% p.a. instead of 18% p.a. which is contrary to law. 14. Another ground urged by the appellant in the grounds of appeal is that the Court below restricted the rate of interest at 12% p.a. instead of 18% p.a. which is contrary to law. It is settled law the use of word may “in Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code confers a discretion of the Court to award or not to award interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit.” On appreciation of the entire material on record and so also on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court justified in awarding the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till the date of decree which needs no interference, but the same has to be awarded from the date of claim by plaintiff. Therefore, with these above observations, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is modified. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court as, the suit is decreed for Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from 04.02.1994 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till the date of realization. No order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.