Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Kaur And Anr. vs Dalbir Kaur And Ors. on 16 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)123PLR568
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT Iqbal Singh, J.
1. The only point requiring determination in this Regular Second Appeal is - whether in case of death of an Army personnel, his mother is entitled to the amount payable under the Army Group Insurance Scheme in the presence of the widow of the deceased Army personnel.
2. The following facts may be noticed:-
Sukhwant Singh, Sepoy No. 3181586, died in the Army.Plaintiff-appellant Swaran Kaur is his mother, Dalbir Kaur, defendant-respondent No. 1 is the wife of Sukhwant Singh (deceased). The present suit was filed by Swaran Kaur, plaintiff-appellant, on the allegations that Sukhwant Singh had not married and that she being the mother of Sukhwant Singh was entitled to his gratuity, amount of Army Group Insurance Scheme and other benefits. It was further stated that defendant-respondent No. 1 Dalbir Kaur filed certain documents in the office of Army Group Insurance Directorate alleging herself to be the widow of Sukhwant Singh and family pension was wrongly granted to her.
3. In the written statement filed by defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2, it was pleaded that Sukhwant Singh (deceased) was married to defendant No. 1 according to Sikh rites and she is entitled to collect family pension. Group Insurance and other dues. It was further stated that Sukhwant Singh was the son of Charan Singh and his wife Swinder Kaur and the plaintiff-appellant Swaran Kaur is only the sister of Swinder Kaur.
4. Defendant-respondent Nos. 3 to 6 pleaded that family pension had been sanctioned to defendant-respondent No. 1 Dalbir Kaur after verifying that she is the widow of Sukhwant Singh and the remaining dues were withheld pending decision of the dispute between the rival claimants.
5. The trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, plaintiff-appellant Swaran Kaur and Swinder Kaur, aforesaid, went in appeal before the lower appellate Court and the same was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, this Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the mother is Class I heir alongwith the wife and, therefore, she is entitled to the amount payable under the Army Group Insurance Scheme. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the widow is entitled to the said benefit under the provisions of the Army Group Insurance Scheme. It is not disputed that the Army Group Insurance Scheme was introduced in January, 1976 under the authority of Government of India, Ministry of Defence No. PCA/37586/AG/PC & JEC/9302/D (Pay/Services) dated December 15, 1975. In this Scheme, it has been specifically pointed out that it is totally departmental and is run by the Army Group Insurance Directorate at Army Head quarters. The main objects of the Scheme being; (a) to provide speedy financial assistance to the families of those Army Personnel 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 of trustees from time to time.
8. Rule 9 of the Army Group Insurance Scheme provides for nomination. In the case of married persons, 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); According to Rule 11 of the said Scheme, besides the above mentioned persons, an individual may nominate dependent parents/brothers/sisters, with the provision that the aggregate share shall not exceed 20 per cent of the total benefits. Rule 43 makes it clear that the parents of the deceased become entitled to this amount only if the deceased dies without leaving behind his widow and children. When confronted with this, the learned counsel for the appellant-mother had nothing to say and rightly so. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the mother being Class 1 heir should be held entitled to share the amount in equal shares, therefore, has no force. This is so because insurance, in the present case, was not one to which the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (Act No. IV of 1938) would apply. The matter in hand has, therefore, to be considered and decided in the contest of the provisions of the Army Group Insurance Scheme and these rules, as stated above, clearly provide that it is the widow who is entitled to the amount payable under this Scheme and not the mother. The provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (Act No. IV of 1938), therefore, are not applicable in the present case.
Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.