1. ' The plaintiff has sued the Insurance Company for recovery of a sum of Rs, 1,76,967.90 under a Triple Benefit Life Insurance Policy. The following facts are admitted by the parties before me.
2. ' The insurance issued on 1st November, 1955 by the defendant to the plaintiff was a Triple Benefit Policy of the face value of Rs, 50,000.
3. ' The above policy which matured on 1st November, 1975 provided that if the plaintiff survived on the 20th anniversary of the date of issue of policy he was entitled to benefits which are mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the Special Provision for Triple Benefit Policy mentioned at page 4 of the policy.
4. It is an admitted position that in addition to the above benefits under the policy the plaintiff was also entitled to certain amount of dividend/bonus declared by the Company from time to time. It is also admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff did not withdraw the bonus/ dividend which was payable to him but he elected to invest the same with the Company by exercising the option No. 3 mentioned at page 2 of the policy under the heading "dividend option". When the policy matured on 1st November, 1975, a dispute arose between the parties as to the amount payable to plaintiff under the policy. The plaintiff claimed that under clauses (a) and (b) of the special provision of triple benefit he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs, 1,34,644 whereas the defendant contended that the amount payable to plaintiff under the policy in accordance with the aforesaid clauses works out to Rs, 1,00,943.29 only. As the controversy between the parties could not be resolved, the plaintiff filed the above suit in this Court. During the pendency of the suit a decree on admission was passed against the defendant which deposited a sum of Rs, 1,00,943.29 in Court on 3rd April, 1979 and the same has been withdrawn by the plaintiff. The present controversy in this suit, therefore, relates only to the difference of the amount which comes to Rs, 38,549.98. The following consent issues were framed by the Court on 3rd March, 1978 after passing of the decree on admission :---
(1) "What amount if any remains payable after the decree passed on admission.
(2) Relief."
3. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined one Naeemuddin Khan (Exh. 4) who produced a letter of defendant, dated 20th May, 1958 Exh. 4/1. The defendant examined one Earnest Wargildian, the Manager of Loan and Surrender branch of defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The fate of this case rests mainly on the construction/interpretation of the special provision for triple benefit contained at page 4 and the provision regarding "dividend option" printed at page 2 of the policy. (I will hereinafter refer clauses A & B of Special Provision for Triple Benefit Policy at page 4 of Policy and options 1 and 3 under the heading "Dividends Options" at page 2 of Policy as clause (a) and clause (b) only and option 1 and option 3 only respectively for the sake of convenience). The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that in accordance with clause (b) his client is entitled to receive on maturity of the policy a sum of Rs, 83,701.99 being the face value of the policy on that date which is calculated after adding the amount of loans/dividends to the original face value of the policy plus a further sum of Rs, 50,799 being the 60% surrender value of the life policy in accordance with clause (a). The learned counsel for the defendant on the other hand contended that upon maturity of the policy the plaintiff was only entitled to receive a sum of Rs, 50,000 in terms of clause (b) and a further sum of Rs, 30,100 being the surrender value of the paid up life policy of Rs, 50,000 and Rs, 20,843.29 being the surrender value of the bonus amounting to Rs, 33,701.99 which accrued to plaintiff during the period of policy.
5. I may mention here that it is common case of the parties that the amount of a Life Policy is payable only on the death of the insured but the insured may also apply for immediate cash payment of a fully paid up life policy which is equal to 60% of the face value of policy and is commonly known as its surrender value. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel it will be necessary to examine in detail the triple benefit mentioned at page 4 of the policy and the dividend options mentioned at page 2 of the policy. These are as follows :- "Dividend options :-At the option of the insured each dividend may be either (1) withdrawn in cash or (2) applied towards payment of the premium hereon, or (31 applied to purchase a non- participating paid up addition to the insurance hereunder or (1) left with the Company to accumulate at interest. The disposition of each dividend will be made in accordance with the option elected in the application therefor, but the insured may, by written notice to the Company not later than three months after the. Due 'date of any dividend, change the option for the disposition of such dividend and subsequent dividends. If no option has been elected for the disposition of a dividend before the end of a period of three months after its due date it shall be left with the Company to accumulate at interest under Option (4)".
6. ' Special provision for triple benefits policy.-"(a) On the tenth anniversary of the date of Issue of Policy, and on each anniversary thereafter, the Amount of Insurance payable in the event of death of the Insured shall be increased by ten per cent. Of the Original Face Amount of Insurance until it has become double such original Face Amount of Insurance on the nineteenth anniversary of said date of issue ; and from the twentieth, the Amount of Insurance shall revert to the original Face Amount of Insurance, provided in this Policy as fully Paid-up Life Policy. The increase in amount of insurance from the tenth to the nineteenth anniversary of this Policy as provided for above shall not, however, be applicable to the Accident Insurance Supplementary Contract attached hereto, the principal sum of said Supplementary Contract for the entire period during which it is in force remaining the same as the original Face Amount of this Policy as set-forth in Schedule I on the face hereof.
(b) If the insured shall survive on the twentieth anniversary of said date of issue, the Company will pay in cash an amount equal to the original Face Amount of Insurance provided in this Policy. This benefit shall be in addition to a regular Paid-up Life Policy for the Face Amount of Insurance as provided in above.
(c) On the twentieth anniversary of said date of Issue, and subject to production at the time of evidence of insurability satisfactory to the Company, the Insured may elect (1) a Paid-up Life Policy for Rs, 1,25,900 or (2) a Paid-up Life Policy for Rs, 1,00,000 and a payment in cash of Rs, 17,050 in place of the benefits provided under "A and "B" above.
(d) The Paid-up Insurance Option provided under the 'Options on Surrender or Lapse" provisions of this Policy shall be regular Paid-up Life Insurance payable in event of death and shall be available only at such earlier durations for which such Paid-up 'values are shown in the Table of Loan and Surrender values.
(e) The amount of Extended Term Insurance referred to in the Extended Term Insurance Option povided under the "Options on Surrender or Lapse" provision of this Policy shall at all times be equal to the actual amount of Insurance in force immediately prior to lapse, as provided in clause "A" of this endorsement plus the amount of any outstanding paid up additions and of any dividends credited to the Policy but not withdrawn, less any existing indebtedness to the Company, and the terms for which such extended Insurance shall remain in force shall not continue beyond the twentieth anniversary of the said date of Issue."
7. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that under clause (b) the plaintiff on the 20th anniversary of the date of issue of the policy was only entitled to receive an amount which is equal to the original face amount of the insurance policy namely Rs, 50,000 and in addition to it under clause (a) he is entitled to a fully paid-up life policy equal to the original face amount of the insurance policy namely Rs, 50,000. In so far the dividends which the plaintiff invested in accordance with option 3 above the learned counsel for the defendant contended that since these dividends were by way of additions to the life policy mentioned in clause (a), therefore, if the plaintiff wanted an immediate cash payment against it he could get only 60% of the amount of dividends invested by him. The interpretation of clauses (a) and (b) and option 3 suggested by the learned counsel is neither in accord with the language of policy not it reflects the true intention of the parties. In my opinion if two interpretations of a term in the insurance policy are possible, then the construction which is more beneficial to the insured is to be preferred. If the contention of learned counsel for the defendant is accepted it will lead to anomalous results. For instance, a policy-holder who exercises option 1 is not only entitled to utilize and withdraw the whole of the bonus/dividend declared by the Company from time to time during the subsistence of policy but on the 20th anniversary of the date of issue of the policy he will also be entitled to receive benefits under clauses (a) and (b) which is equal to the benefit available to a policy-holder who elected to invest the amount of bonus/dividend with the Company under option 3 during his policy period. On the other hand a policy holder who elected to invest his bonus/dividend with the Company under option 3, if wishes to encase the invested bonus/dividend on the 20th anniversary of the date of the issue of policy he gets only 60% of the total invested amount of bonus/dividend. Such a result could not have been in the contemplation of the parties. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the interpretation of clauses (a) and (b) and the option 3 suggested by the learned counsel for the defendant. Upon a careful reading of option 3 with clauses (b) and (a) I am in no doubt that the amount of bonus/ dividend invested by the policy-holder under option 3 is to be applied for purchase of a non-participating paid up additions to the insurance already purchased by him and therefore on the 20th anniversary when the policy matures, the policy-holder gets a cash payment under clause (b) which is B equal to original face vaue of policy plus the actual amount of dividend/ bonus invested by him and similarly under clause (a) he gets a fully paid up life policy of the value equal to original face value of policy and the amount of bonus and dividend invested by him. The total benefit which thus accrues to a policy-holder in return for his investment of bonus/dividends with the Company for the period of policy in the end, is the addition of the amount of bonus/dividends to the original face value of the fully paid-up life policy mentioned in clause (a) and which if the policy-holder desires to get converted immediately in cash comes to only 60% of the amount of bonus/dividends invested by him under option 3. These conclusions by me fully harmonise with the language and objects of insurance policy and also find support from the letter of defendant, dated 19th May, 1958 (Exh. 4/1) addressed to plaintiff immediately after he opted for option 3. Mr. Tahir Hussain, the learned counsel for the defendant attempted to argue that the rate of dividends in case of exercise of option 3 by a policy-holder is higher than that which is paid to a policyholder under option 1. This argument of learned counsel has no basis. Firstly no such plea is raised by the defendent in its written statement and secondly there is nothing in the terms of policy which supports the learned counsel's contention. No doubt the witness examined by the defendant did make such a statement in Court in examination in chief but in cross- examination he was unable to substantiare the same. In the case before me it is admitted by defendant in it written statement that the total amount of bonus/dividend invested by the plaintiff under option 3 was Rs, 33,701. The original face value of the policy issued in favour of the plaintiff was Rs, 50,000 and after adding the amount of bonus/dividend to original face value of the policy on the 20th anniversary of the date of issue of policy when the policy matured the amount payable to plaintiff under clause (b) comes to Rs, 83,701. It is, therefore, quite clear that on 1st November, 1975 the plaintiff was entitled to receive from the defendant under the Triple Benefit Policy C a sum of Rs, 83,701 in cash in addition to the issue of a fully paid-up life policy of the face value of Rs, 83,701 under clause (a). As the plaintiff had applied for cash payment against the life policy he was entitled to get 60% of Rs, 83,701 against the life policy which comes to Rs, 50,220.06. The total amount thus payable to plaintiff on 1st November, 1975 works out to Rs, 1,33,921.06. The plaintiff has claimed in the suit interest on the amount payable to him 13% per annum put the date of suit and further interest at the same rate is also claimed till the payment of amount. The plaintiff has however not led any evidence on the rate of interest prevailing in 1975 but it was admitted by the learned counsel for the defendant that in 1975 the rate of interest awarded by the bank on deposit was between 6 and 9%. As the amount payable to plaintiff was withheld by the defendant unreasonably I award interest to the plaintiff 8% per annum. The plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs, 1,00,943.29 out of the claim in suit which was deposited by the defendant in Court on 3rd April, 1979.
8. Therefore upto 3rd April, 1979 the plaintiff will get interest at the above rate on the sum of Rs, 1,33,921.06 and thereafter he will be entitled to interest at the same rate on the Bianca amount of Rs, 32,977.77 till the amount is paid. The plaintiff will also be entitled to proportionate costs of the suit.