Allahabad High Court
Seema And Ors. vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Thru ... on 4 July, 2024
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45520-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25038 of 2020 Petitioner :- Seema And Ors. Respondent :- United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Thru Chief R.M. Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Singh,Abhay Raj Singh,Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and Sri A.K. Srivastava for the Insurance Company.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :-
"I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the opposite party no. 2 by which release of the insurance claim of the petitioner is denied in want of succession certificate to be issued by the competent civil court.
II. A wirt, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no. 2, to release the payment of compensation to the petitioner against the policy no. 0821033118P112583401 issued by "United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which is not being paid by the opposite party no. 2."
It is the case of the petitioners that the husband of the petitioner no. 1 was a school teacher and he died in an accident on 19.09.2019. First Information Report was lodged on 21.09.2020 and on, 24.10.2019, the petitioners intimated the opposite party no. 2 that the husband of the petitioner no. 1 had died in a road accident and she is the legally wedded wife and entitled for payment of compensation against policy no. 0821033118P112583401. By the letter dated 01.11.2019, the opposite party no. 2 has demanded two documents, i.e., firstly, a Succession Certificate and secondly, the Driving License of the deceased. In response to the said letter the petitioners have submitted a Succession Certificate issued by the District Magistrate along with the Driving License of the deceased on 18.12.2019. In spite of the submission of the documents, the opposite parties have not released the compensation amount to the petitioners. She was orally told that unless a Succession Certificate is issued from the Court concerned, the compensation amount could not be given to her.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no legal provision of issuance of Succession Certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for claiming compensation amount as the compensation amount is neither a debt nor a security. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rukhsana Vs. Nazrunnisa reported in 2000 (9) SCC 240, wherein, a dispute with regard to compensation admissible to the dependent of the deceased who died in Kuwait was raised between his widow Smt. Rukhsana and his mother, Nazrunnisa. The mother had raised a claim for a portion of the said compensation amount and the High Court had directed the parties to produce the succession certificate. The appellant, widow had approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court observed that the succession certificate as envisaged in the Indian Succession Act can be granted only in respect of debts or securities, to which a deceased was entitled. The amount involved in the case was neither a debt nor security. It was a compensation sanctioned on account of the death of the deceased. It was not an asset belonging to the deceased but an amount which the legal representatives of the deceased could claim on their own account.
The Court thereafter observed that the parties should move the appropriate application before the civil Court concerned only for the purpose of decision regarding shares in the amount of compensation they were entitled as per the Personal Law applicable to them.
The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Hafiz Naushad Ahmad and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2021 (3) T.A.C. 725 (All.), wherein, while referring the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rukhsana Vs. Nazrunnisa (Supra), the Court observed that the petitioners being parents of the deceased who was unmarried and there being no other successor and a letter having been issued from the office of District Magistrate after due enquiry that no one survives after the deceased except his parents there was no requirement to obtain succession certificate to receive the amount of compensation.
The Division Bench considered Section 370, 371, 372, 373 and 374 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and then made certain observations.
This Court having gone through the judgement feels it appropriate to quote paragraph 11 and 12 of the aforesaid judgement as follows:-
"11. Sections 370, 371, 372, 373 and 374 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are relevant for the purposes of the present case and, therefore, these Sections are reproduced below :-
370. Restriction on grant of certificates under this part.--(1) A succession certificate (hereinafter in this Part referred to as a certificate) shall not be granted under this Part with respect to any debt or security to which a right is required by section 212 or section 213 to be established by letters of administration or probate:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prevent the grant of a certificate to any person claiming to be entitled to the effects of a deceased Indian Christian, or to any part thereof, with respect to any debt or security, by reason that a right thereto can be established by letters of administration under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, "security" means--
(a) any promissory note, debenture, stock or other security of the Central Government or of a State Government;
(b) any bond, debenture, or annuity charged by Act of Parliament [of the United Kingdom] on the revenues of India;
(c) any stock or debenture of, or share in, a company or other incorporated institution;
(d) any debenture or other security for money issued by, or on behalf of, a local authority;
(e) any other security which the [State Government] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a security for the purposes of this Part.
371. Court having jurisdiction to grant certificate.--The District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death, or, if at that time he had no fixed place of residence, the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant a certificate under this Part.
372. Application for certificate.--(1) Application for such a certificate shall be made to the District Judge by a petition signed and verified by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the signing and verification of a plaint by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the following particulars, namely:--
(a) the time of the death of the deceased;
(b) the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property of the deceased within those limits;
(c) the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences;
(d) the right in which the petitioner claims;
(e) the absence of any impediment under section 370 or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment, to the grant of the certificate or to the validity thereof if it were granted; and
(f) the debts and securities in respect of which the certificate is applied for.
(2) If the petition contains any averment which the person verifying it knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, that person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). (3) Application for such a certificate may be made in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof.
373. Procedure on application.--(1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing--
(a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and
(b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and upon the day fixed, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate. (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (3) If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. (4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants.
374. Contents of certificate.--When the District Judge grants a certificate, he shall therein specify the debts and securities set forth in the application for the certificate, and may thereby empower the person to whom the certificate is granted--
(a) to receive interest or dividends on, or
(b) to negotiate or transfer, or
(c) both to receive interest or dividends on, and to negotiate or transfer, the securities or any of them.
12. Bare reading of Sections 370 and 374 of the Act makes it clear that a Succession Certificate can be granted in respect of debts and Securities. The word "security" has been defined in Section 370(2) of the Act which does not include compensation. Therefore, in our considered view there is no requirement to obtain a succession certificate under the provisions of Part X (Sections 370 to 390) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to receive compensation amount awarded on account of death of the son of the petitioners."
The Division Bench thereafter observed that there was no dispute that the petitioners were the legal representatives of their deceased son being his parents as he was unmarried when he died. The District Magistrate had conducted an enquiry and issued a certificate that the parents are the only members of the deceased's family. A certificate issued by the Chief of Public Court of Shaqra Province Second Public Circuit, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was also produced before the Court which showed that the petitioners were the legal heirs of their deceased son. The said Court of Saudi Arabia had adjudicated a compensation of 300,000 Saudi Rials to the petitioners. The Court considered the certificate issued by the District Magistrate by which the petitioners were found to be the only surviving members of the family of the deceased son and thereafter, directed the respondents therein to disburse the amount of compensation forthwith to the parents along with interest admissible for late payment.
We have carefully gone through the judgement rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
We have also heard Sri A.K. Srivastava. According to Sri A.K. Srivastava, in the case of Smt Rukhsana Vs. Nazrunnisa (Supra), there was a dispute between the widow and the mother of the deceased and the Supreme Court had directed them to approach the civil Court for declaration of their shares in the amount of compensation. In so far as the Division Bench Judgement in the case of Hafiz Naushad Ahmad and Another Vs. Union of India and Others (Supra) is concerned, it has been submitted that there was a certificate issued by the District Magistrate and also an order passed by a Court of Saudi Arabia. In the case of the petitioners, the deceased had not named any person as a nominee in the policy documents. The appropriate course for the petitioners would be to file a declaration suit before the competent civil Court, in case the petitioner no. 2 and 3 who are the unmarried sons of the petitioner no. 1 and the deceased do not dispute the claim of petitioner no. 1, then the declaration would be enough for the Insurance Company to disburse the compensation.
We find from the judgement rendered by the Division Bench in Hafiz Naushad Ahmad and Another Vs. Union of India and Others (Supra) that undisputedly, one Court of Saudi Arabia had directed the payment of amount of compensation, i.e., 300,000 Saudi Riyal and also determined the shares of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 for the same compensation of equivalent of Rs. 16,60,606/-. The District Magistrate had also issued a certificate on the administrative side showing the petitioners to be the parents of their unmarried son, who died unfortunately in Kuwait.
In the case of the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 has claimed to be the widow and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have claimed to be the sons of late Sant Prakash but there being a difficulty that no nominee has been mentioned in the policy of life insurance taken by late Sant Prakash, we cannot direct the Insurance Company to ignore its guidelines and give compensation to the petitioner no. 1 only at the behest of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, who are her sons. It would be appropriate that the petitioner no. 1 may file the declaratory suit.
This petition is disposed off, with a direction to the petitioner no. 1 to file a declaratory suit arraying as dependents, her sons or any other person who may lay a clay to such compensation being legal heirs-representatives before the competent civil Court.
We hope and expect such declaratory suit to be decided expeditiously, as and when, it is filed.
Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Anurag .
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)