Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing K. Satyavathi vs Regional Director, Employee State ... on 17 July, 1990

Smt. Veena Rani Widow vs Mangat Ram And Anr. on 26 April, 1991

5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant I find farce in his submission. I sum of Rs. 3,759.70 paise which had been deposited by the employer on account of gratuity, leave and bonus etc. do not form part of the estate of the deceased. In view of the provisions of sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, a mother is not entitled to this amount. She is not proved to be dependent on the deceased by any evidence produced on the record. For my above conclusion. I seek support from the observations made in Smt. K. Satyctvati's case (supra). As regards the amount paid by the Company under the Accidental Benefit Policy held by the deceased, in my view, the same would form part of the estate of the deceased and, therefore, the mother would be entitled to share it equally with the widow of the deceased. Sub-section (p) of Section 2 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 provides that words and expression used in this Act but not defined herein and defined in the Insurance Act, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in that Act. It was rightly conceded by the counsel for the appellant that proceeds of Life Insurance Policy under the Insurance Act form part of the estate of the deceased and all the heirs as detailed in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are entitled to a share therein and in view of the definition as given in sub-section (p) of Section 2 of the 1972 Act aforesaid, the same would be the position of the money payable by the Company in respect of the Accidental Benefit Policy held by the deceased. Thus, the mother and widow would be entitled to share the same equally.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1