Delhi District Court
Smt. Swati & Ors vs Lic Of India & Ors on 11 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. ACHAL TYAGI, CIVIL JUDGE:
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit no. : 338/12
Unique case ID no: 02402 C0259482012
Smt. Swati & Ors. .......... Plaintiffs
vs.
LIC Of India & Ors. .......... Defendants
ORDER:
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the present application u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the adjudication of the present application are as follows. That the plaintiff no. 2 is the son of plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no. 2 is the mother in law of plaintiff no.1. It has been stated that the plaintiff no.1 was married on 27.11.09 with the son of defendant no.2 namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar and out of the said wedlock a male child i.e. plaintiff no. 2 was born on 18.08.11. It has been stated that the husband of the plaintiff no.1 had taken two life insurance policies from the defendant no.1 out of which one was Suit No. 338/12 Page no. 1 of 8 bearing no. 121620860 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/ dated 06.09.12 and another bearing no. 123957496 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ dated 10.12.07. It has been apprised that both the policies were obtained by the deceased husband of the plaintiff no.1 before his marriage and defendant no. 2 was made nominee in both the policies. That on 16.07.12 husband of plaintiff no.1 expired due to abdomen pain in ESI hospital, NOIDA, U.P. It has been apprised that the defendant no. 2 is trying to obtain the amount of both the aforesaid policies from the defendant no.1 despite the fact that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Rajesh Kumar.
3. It has been stated that on 21.08.12 plaintiff no.1 approached the defendant no.1 for obtaining her share in the insured amount of both the policies of her husband however defendant no.1 refused to release the said amount in her favour stating that the defendant no. 2 is the nominee in both the policies and the whole amount would be released to the defendant no.2. That on 24.08.12 the plaintiff no.1 has sent a claim form after complying with all the formalities to the defendant no.1 however despite that the defendant no. 1 refused to release the claim amount to the plaintiffs. That the plaintiff no.1 approached the defendant no.2 requested her and to give NOC to her however Suit No. 338/12 Page no. 2 of 8 defendant no. 2 refused to accede to the said request of the plaintiffs.
4. It has been stated that the plaintiffs are the first class legal heirs of the deceased husband of the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the amount due on the policies of Late Rajesh Kumar from the defendant no.1. The plaintiffs have accordingly filed the present suit praying for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.1 to release 1/3rd amount for each of the plaintiffs in respect of both the policies of the husband of plaintiff no.1. Plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from disbursing the entire amount due on the policies in favour of the the defendant no. 2.
5. The defendant no.1 has also filed their WS to the suit filed by the plaintiffs and stated that as per the insurance policy condition the nominee is the person who is entitled to receive the policy money in the event of death of the life assured. It has accordingly been stated that the defendant no.1 is under an obligation to pay the insured amount to the nominee unless there is an order from this court to the contrary. Defendant no.1 has admitted the fact that the two policies as detailed were taken by the late husband of the plaintiff no.1 from the Suit No. 338/12 Page no. 3 of 8 defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has denied the other averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint and have prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
6. The defendant no.2 has filed her WS to the suit filed by the plaintiffs and taken the preliminary objection that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC as the same is filed without any cause of action. The defendant no.2 has also stated that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and the present suit is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts. It has been stated that the late husband of plaintiff no.1 had great love and affection for the defendant no.2 that is why he made defendant no. 2 his nominee in his insurance policies. It has also been stated that the plaintiff no.1 used to pick up quarrels with her husband and never discharged her duties towards her husband as normal wife. It has also been stated that plaintiff no.1 had left the matrimonial house by taking all her jewelleries and articles just after last rites of her husband. It has also been stated that the plaintiff no.1 is money minded lady and she is trying to deprive the defendant no. 2 from taking benefits of the two insurance policies in which she was made a nominee for her use and utilzation in her old age. It has been stated that the plaintiffs are not Suit No. 338/12 Page no. 4 of 8 entitled to get any share in the policies of the deceased husband of the plaintiff no.1. The defendant no.2 has denied the other averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint and has prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
7. Vide the present application the plaintiffs has averred that the plaintiffs have a good prima facie case in their favour and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly plaintiffs have prayed for ad interim injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from disbursing the amount due on both the insurance policies in the name of defendant no. 2.
8. The defendant no. 2 has filed her reply to the present application and denied the averments made by the plaintiffs in the present application and prayed for dismissal of the same.
9. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and carefully perused the record. It is pertinent to note that the defendant no.2 is the nominee of the policies that were taken by the husband of the plaintiff no.1. The factum of policies taken by the late husband of the plaintiff no.1 and defendant no. 2 being the nominee in those Suit No. 338/12 Page no. 5 of 8 policies is admitted position of both the parties. The dispute relates to the fact as to whether defendant no.2 is entitled to receive the entire amount that is due on the policies from the defendant no.1. In this regard it is important to mention section 45ZA of the Banking Companies Nomination Rules (1985) which reads as under:
"45ZA.......
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount to deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the cse may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner. ............"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Chander Talwar & Another vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & Others reported as __ while dealing with this issue has observed :
"Section 45ZA (2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the Suit No. 338/12 Page no. 6 of 8 depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of section 45ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed."
10. It is thus evident that a nominee only gets a right to receive the money, and he does not get the ownership of the money lying in the account of the deceased. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that defendant no. 2 has no right to receive the amount lying in the account of the deceased to the exclusion of other legal heirs.
11. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the authorities discussed I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs are the first class legal heirs of the deceased and thus they have an interest in the state of the deceased. An irreparable loss shall be caused to the plaintiffs if the money is disbursed by defendant Suit No. 338/12 Page no. 7 of 8 no.1 to defendant no. 2. Accordingly defendant no.1 is restrained from releasing any amount in favour of the defendant no.2 till the pendency of the present proceedings. The present application filed by the plaintiff is accordingly disposed of as allowed. Nothing herein above shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case.
Announced in the open (ACHAL TYAGI)
Court on 11.02.2013 Civil Judge/East
KKD Courts, Delhi
Suit No. 338/12 Page no. 8 of 8