Delhi High Court
Vimla Nanda vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 1 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998VIAD(DELHI)630, 73(1998)DLT599
Author: Manmohan Sarin
Bench: Manmohan Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge, rejecting the appellant's claim for issuance of a Succession Certificate in respect of the benefits under the Group Insurance Personal Accident Policy, covered by the Citi Bank Diners Club and the Citi Bank Visa Card. The learned Civil Judge held that the amount claimed was neither a 'debt' nor 'security' and, hence, Succession Certificate could not be granted.
2. Appellant's husband, late Shri Sudesh Kumar Nanda, was the holder of two Credit Cards issued by the Citi Bank, N.A., viz. Citi Bank Diners Club Card and Citi Bank Visa Card, bearing Nos. 36559061904002 and 4568229037298008 respectively. Citi Bank had taken a Group Insurance Policy, for the benefit of its members holding the Diners Club Card and the Visa Card, with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The subscription paid by the members included the proportionate premium for the Group Insurance Policy, payable to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Under the Group Life Insurance Policy, Diner Club Card members and Visa Card members were insured against loss of life in an accident for Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs respectively. The two policies being independent of each other and the insurance cover being available for 24 hours a day throughout the year in India and abroad.
3. Unfortunately, the husband of the appellant, Mr. Sudesh Kumar Nanda is said to have been murdered while on duty in office. Appellant demanded from the New India Assurance Co. the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs payable under the said policies. The Insurance Company called upon the appellant to send the original death certificate, post-mortem report, FIR and claim form, duly completed, as well as the Succession Certificate issued by the Competent Court. Correspondence was entered into with the Insurance Company, who insisted upon the Succession Certificate, leading to the appellant moving an application for grant of the said Succession Certificate.
4. The short question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the insurance amount that was payable on account of the death of the deceased under the insurance policies is a 'debt' within the meaning of Section -14 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act? Reference in this connection may be invited to Vittal Rao and Another Vs. R. Hanumantha Rao and Others, AIR 1927 Madras 359. The High Court of Madras, in the said case, was considering an appeal against the refusal of the District Judge to grant a Succession Certificate so that petitioners could recover the sum of money due on a life insurance policy. The District Judge had held that the money payable did not form a 'debt' under Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act,1889. The Madras High Court considered the judgments relied on by the District Judge and distinguished them. It noticed the Full Bench ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Bancharam Majumdar Vs. Adya Nath Bhattacharja, 1909) 10 C.L.J. 180, holding that the ordinary meaning of the word 'debt' is to be ascribed under Section 4 of the Act, and that it applies to a sum of money which does not become payable till after the death of the creditor and that in such a case the creditors cannot obtain a decree without the production of a Certificate under the Succession Certificate Act. It, therefore, held that Succession Certificate may be granted in respect of the money due under a policy of insurance.
5. Reference may also be usefully made to Abdul Karim and Another Vs. Raheesa Ansari, . The Court in this case had granted Certificate of Succession to three applicants, viz. the father, maternal grandfather and widow of the deceased in proportion to their shares, as determined under the Mohammedan Law of Succession. A major item falling under the deceased's estate was the amount due as claim under the Insurance Policy taken out by the deceased. The persons nominated under the column 'beneficiaries' under the policy were the widow and a brother of the deceased, to the extent of 50 per cent each, in the event of the death of the insured. Relying on the said nomination it was contended by the widow that no Succession Certificate could be issued to the father and maternal grandfather of the deceased in respect of the amount under the Insurance Policy since they were not nominees under the insurance policy. It was held that there was nothing wrong in the Succession Court deciding to grant Succession Certificate to the father and the maternal grandfather in respect of the money due under the insurance policy since they were the heirs of the deceased. It was held that the insurance amount belonged to the estate of the deceased, which vested in the heirs. Money due under a policy and payable to the assured, if he was living at the time of maturity, or payable to the nominees of the policy was 'debt' for the purposes of issuance of the Succession Certificate.
6. In view of the above discussion and the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the learned Civil Judge was in error in declining the issuance of Succession Certification the ground that the money payable under an insurance policy was not a 'debt' as contemplated under Sections 214 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act. The insurance money belonged to the estate of the deceased and would fall within the definition of 'debt' for the purposes of issuance of the Succession Certificate.
7. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the case is remanded back to the Civil Judge for disposal on merits in accordance with law.
Parties to appear before the Civil Judge on 29th May, 1998. The Trial Court record be returned forthwith.