Madras High Court
Bindhu Kumari vs Ramayyan Nadar on 27 July, 2017
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
SECOND APPEAL (MD) No.101 of 2014
1.Bindhu Kumari
2.B.Akila (Minor) ... Appellants /
Appellants/ Plaintiffs
(2nd appellant represented by the
1st appellant as natural guardian)
Vs.
1.Ramayyan Nadar
2.Muththachi
3.The Branch Manager,
L.I.C. of India,
North Street Martandam,
Nalloor Desom,
Nalloor Village,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Divisional Manager,
L.I.C. of India,
Tirunelvveli Divisional Office,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents /
Respondents / Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2010, made in A.S.No.64 of 2008 on the file
of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated
09.02.2007, made in O.S.No.178 of 2004 on the file of the I-Additional
District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
!For appellant ... Mr.Wilfred Prakash
^For 1st respondent .... Ms.N.Juliet Latha
For respondent Nos.2 & 3 ... No appearance
For 4th respondent .... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
:JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs, who had failed in both the Courts below in part, has preferred the above appeal for disallowed portion. The suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased policy holder and for consequential injunction against the respondents 3 and 4 from paying any amount to the first defendant alone, who is the nominee appointed by the policy holder.
2. The plaintiffs are the wife and daughter respectively of one deceased Radhakrishnan. The first and second defendants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the first plaintiff. The husband of the first plaintiff, while working as Technician in O.N.G.C. Limited, Pondicherry, had taken an insurance policy with the L.I.C. of India on 24.09.1991, in which he had mentioned the name of his father as nominee. The sum assured was Rs.1 lakh. The marriage between the first plaintiff and the deceased was solemnized on 06.09.1999 and the second plaintiff was born out of the said wedlock on 31.07.2003. While so, the husband of the first plaintiff died in harness on 13.03.2003. When the first plaintiff applied for settlement claim, the third and fourth defendants rejected her claim stating that her husband had nominated only the first defendant as nominee and as per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, the Corporation has to settle the amount only to the nominees. The first defendant, who was authorised to receive the money, denied the plaintiffs share as legal heirs, the first defendant had suspicion over the involvement of the first plaintiff in the death of his son. Hence, the Suit.
3.Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked, and on the side of the defendants, DW.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was marked. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the first plaintiff is not entitled to get share as she has subsequently married another person and living with him, and that the second plaintiff, as the legal heir of the deceased, is entitled to equal share along with the first defendant.
4.This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
?a)Is not succession opened on the date of death of the husband of the appellant?
b)Whether the appellant is not entitled to share of the deceased merely she was remarried quite long time from the death of the deceased husband?
c)Whether the remarriage of appellant dis-entitled over the property of the deceased husband??
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records carefully.
6.There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants. The Insurance policy is nothing but a contract. According to the Insurance company, as per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, the company has to pay the insurance amount only to the nominee, in case of death of policy holder. When a question arose whether a nominee under Section 39 of the Act gets an absolute right to the amount due under a life insurance policy on the death of the assured, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment reported in AIR 1984 SC 346 (Sarbati Devi and another Vs. Usha Devi) has held that a mere nomination made under Section 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 hand 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.
7.The Courts below have allowed the claim of the second plaintiff, but negatived the claim of the first plaintiff on the ground that she has remarried. It is the contention of the first plaintiff that at the time of filing of the suit, she was not remarried and after some time, she has remarried. Admittedly, the insurance policy has been taken by the husband of the first plaintiff before the marriage. If the husband of the first plaintiff had changed the nominee in the policy after the marriage, the first plaintiff would have received the amount immediately after the death of her husband. As stated earlier, the insurance policy is noting but a contract. The claim made by the first plaintiff in respect of the policy amount, as the legal heir of her husband, before the remarriage, cannot be negatived on the ground that she has now remarried. The delay in the process of sanctioning of the amount and in the process of the Court would not fetter the right of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff is entitled to receive her share as the legal heir of her first husband as she has claimed the same before her remarriage. The questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs.
8. In the result, this Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside inasmuch as declining the relief for the first plaintiff and it is declared that the first plaintiff is also entitled to equal share in the insurance amount. No costs.
To
1.The Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.
2.The I-Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
3.VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.