Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Saroj vs Smt. Murti Devi And Others on 14 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1992ACJ93, AIR1991P&H183, (1991)99PLR343, AIR 1991 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 183, (1991-1) 99 PUN LR 343, 1991 (2)REVLR77, (1991) 1 PUN LR 343, (1992) ILR 1 P&H 135, (1993) 1 ACC 570, (1992) 1 ACJ 93, (1991) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 661
ORDER
1. The contest here is between the widow and the mother of an Army Sepoy Mahinder Singh, with regard to the amount that became payable consequent upon his death under the Army Group Insurance Scheme.
2. On the death of Mahinder Singh on April, 29, 1982, a sura of Rs. 50,000/ - become payable to his heirs under the Army Group Insurance Scheme. An application was filed for the grant of a Succession Certificate in respect of this amount, by his parents-Smt. Sharjoo and Munshi Ram. This application was contested by Murti Devi, the widow of the deceased on the plea that being the nominee of the deceased, she alone was entitled to receive the said sum. The trial Court held that both the widow and the mother being Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, were entitled to the said sum in equal shares. On appeal, however, the widow succeeded and it was held that she was entitled to the entire amount. This is what constitutes the challenge in revision now.
3. In dealing with this matter, regard must be had to the terms and conditions of the Army Group Insurance Scheme. A reference to the Special Army Order in this behalf, shows that this Insurance Scheme was introduced in January 1976 under the authority of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence No. PCA/37586/AG/PC & JEC/9302/D(Pay/ Services) dated December 15, 1975. It has been specifically pointed out there that the Scheme is totally departmental and is run by the Army Group Insurance Directorate at Army Headquarters. The main objects of the scheme being; (a) to provide speedy financial assistance to the families of those Army Personal who may die while in service; (b) to provide lump sum terminal benefit at the time of retirement; and, (c) to provide other benefits/assistance as may be decided by the Board to trustees from time to time.
4. Under the Army Group Insurance Scheme, it has been rendered obligatory for all ranks to make a nomination of persons who would be entitled to receive the benefits thereunder. This has been so provided by Rule 9 thereof. In the case of married personnel, Rule 10 lays down that the nomination has to be made in favour of only any of the following persons, namely :
a) Wife/husband;
b) Sons and daughters (including step and legally adopted children);
While, according to R. 11, besides these persons, an individual may nominate dependent parents/brothers/sisters, with the provision that their aggregate share shall not exceed 20 per cent of the total benefits.
5. Next to note is R. 43 which deals with payments of insurance claims where no nomination has been made or it does not subsist. According to this rule, if no nomination has been made or subsists, and the deceased is survived by wife/husband/sons and daughters, it shall be paid to the widow and it is only if the wife had pre-deceased the deceased, that the amount shall be paid to his abovementioned surviving members in equal shares. Further, the parents of the deceased become entitled to this amount only if the deceased dies without leaving behind his widow and children.
6. In the face of the clear provisions of the Army Group Insurance Scheme, there can be no escape from the conclusion that in the presencejof the widow, the mother has no right to claim any amount payable thereunder.
7. Face with this situation, counsel for the mother sought to press in aid the provisions of Insurance Act, 1938 (Act No. IV of 1938) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346 : (1984 All U 194), where it was observed (at page 352 SC of AIR 1984) :--
"A mere nomination made under S. 39 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the head which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them (at page SC 349 of AIR 1984).
The summary of the relevant provisions of S. 39 establishes clearly that the policy holder continues to hold interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquires no sort of inlerest in the policy during the lifetime of the policy holder. If that be so, on the death of the policy holder the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or inter-State. There is no warrant for the position that S. 39 of the Act operates as a third kind of succession which is styled as a 'statutory testament'. The provision in sub-sec. (6) of S. 39 which says that the amount shall be payable to the nominee or nominees does not mean that the amount shall belong to the nominee or nominees. The language of S. 39 is not capable of altering the course of succession under law."
8. Counsel further contended that as under Hindu Succession Act, both the widow and the mother were Class I heirs, they were entitled to share the amount under Group Insurance Scheme in equal shares.
9. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, though attractive, on the face of it, cannot stand scrutiny, as admitted-ly, the insurance in the present are was not one to which the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (Act No. IV of 1938) applied. This being so, the observations of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi case (supra) are, therefore, clearly not applicable. The matter has thus to be considered and decided in the context of the provisions of the Army Group Insurance Scheme and these, as mentioned earlier, clearly provide that it is the widow who is entitled to the amount payable thereunder and not the mother.
10. Such thus being the unambiguous position in law, no exception can be taken to the impugned order of the lower appellate Court, which is accordingly hereby upheld and affirmed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.
11. Petition dismissed.