Madras High Court
Mrs. Amirthavalli Mohan And Another vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India, ... on 6 April, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1994MAD431, AIR 1995 MADRAS 431, (1996) 2 BANKCAS 566 (1996) 1 BANKLJ 193, (1996) 1 BANKLJ 193
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dt. 4-7-94 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 11316 of 1994. The appellants herein were the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. They sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs. 13,074/- with interest from the date of adjustment of the loan till date of payment, being the bonus accrued in respect of the policies taken by Sate P. M. Mohan and the title deeds of the property pledged with them in respect of the housing loan taken by late P. M. Mohan.
2. The said Mohan died on 10-12-1989. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that, as there is a suit filed by the first appellant for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties in which the present sum payable under the policies in question can be included and the L.I.C. also can be impleaded in the suit and the matter settled in the said suit itself. The learned single Judge has also held that the proviso to S. 39(4) of the Insurance Act is applicable to the facts of the case, and therefore, there is no cancellation of the nomination, as such the amount in question should be paid only to the 1st petitioner in the writ petition.
3. In this case, it is not necessary to consider the scope and ambit of the proviso to S. 39(4) of the Insurance Act.
4. It is a case in which the facts necessary for the purpose of granting relief are no more in dispute. The late Mohan had three policies to his credit with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the first respondent herein. He had pledged those policies and title deeds of the house with the first respondent for the purpose of raising housing loan. It is not in dispute that after adjusting the loan amount due from Mohan, the balance of the amount payable under the aforesaid three policies is in the order of Rs. 12,943/-, though the writ petitioners claim Rs. 13,074/-. The letter dated 21-2-1995 by the first respondent contains the calculation and states that the amount available under the three policies is only Rs. 12,943.70 P. and the amount claimed by the writ petitioners is not correct. The first respondent must be held to have adjusted the amount due to it on the death of Mohan, who died on 10-12-1989. Therefore, it ought to have paid the balance of Rs. 12,943.70 P. within a month or two, from 10-12-1989 to the nominee mentioned under the policies, who is the first appellant. The appellants are the widow and the son and the second respondent is the mother of the deceased Mohan. It is clear from what is stated above that the LIC has withhold the amount without any justification for a period from 1st March, 1990, because we give margin of two months to the LIC for setting the claim. In that event, there is no justification to deny the interest on the said sum of Rs. 12,943.70 P. because the LIC itself coilects interest. It is also not in dispute that the appellants and the 2nd respondent being Class-I heirs of the deceased Mohan, each one is entitled to one third share. The amount payable by the LIC need not be delayed till the suit is decided by the Civil Court. Accordingly we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow the writ petition in the following terms :
(1) The 1st respondent/LIC is directed to pay a sum of Rs, 12,943.70 P. with interest at 15% p.m. from 1-3-1989 till the date of payment;
(2) Out of the said sum of Rs. 12,943.70 P. with interest one third of it should be paid to the 2nd respondent Mrs. Nagaveni, and the remaining 2/3rd of the amount should be paid to the appellants;
(3) The L.I.C. (1st respondent) is also directed to hand over all the title deeds to the 1st appellant when the amount is paid. The first appellant is also directed to produce these title deeds in the partition suit, said to have been filed and pending;
(4) The LIC is granted one month time to comply with the above directions.
There will be no order as to costs.
5. Order accordingly.