IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37655 of 2009(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ REENA @ VEENA, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.LATE SRI.SURESH, RESIDING AT URALIKONAM VEEDU, POOVATHOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 561. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CORPORATE OFFICE, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, NATIONAL BUILDINGS, MAHADEVERSWARAM JUNCTION, KILIMANOOR - 695 601. 3. SUNDARESAN, S/O.RAGAVAN, KADAKAMPILLY VEEDU, NELLANDU, POOVANATHUMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI R3 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.A.S.SABU, SRI.RAFEEK. V.K., SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.37655/2009 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT OF POLICY NO.783260856 DTD.15/12/2009. P2: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION LETTER. P3: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY LOCAL REGISTRAR, NDUMAGAD MUNICIPALITY, DTD. 17/12/2008. P4: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE 03/10/2000. P5: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD. 31/08/2009 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, NELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P6: COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DTD. 07/12/2009. P7: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD. 09/12/2009. P8: COPY OF THE PETITIONI DTD. 28/12/2009. P9: COPY OF ORDER IN WPC.NO.4744/2010 DTD. 24/02/2010. P10: COPY OF FIR NO.243/2010 DTD. 25/02/2010. P11: COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE NO.B5.1006/2010 DTD.24/5/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 37655 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of late Sri. Suresh, who insured his life with the Life Insurance Corporation of India before his marriage for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Petitioner's husband met with a motor accident and died on 18.08.2009. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the petitioner's husband had, at the time of taking the policy put his brother as the nominee for receiving the policy amount. After the marriage he did not change the nominee also. A child was also born out of the wedlock. After the death, when the petitioner requested respondents 1 & 2 to disburse the money to the petitioner, they expressed inability stating that as per the records of the LIC, the 3rd respondent- brother of the deceased, is the nominee. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner had filed this writ W.P.(C)No. 37655 of 2009 -2- petition seeking the following reliefs: “A) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents, to treat the petitioner's legal notice dated 07/12/2009 (Exhibit P6), as change of nomination in the policy replacing the 3rd respondent with the name of the petitioner. B) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents, to disburse the insurance amount covered under the life insurance policy no.783260856 of late Sri. Suresh to the petitioner for herself and on behalf of her child Anand Krishna.” 2. On 08.06.2010 I passed the following interim order: “It is settled law that a nominee cannot appropriate money received by him in his capacity as nominee. The nomination is only for the purpose of receiving the amount. After receiving the same, the nominee is legally bound to disburse the same to the legal heirs. Therefore, I am prima facie satisfied that although the third respondent can receive the amount, ultimately, he has to hand over the same to the petitioner and her child, who are the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder, who is none other than the brother of the 3rd respondent who is expected to be interested in the welfare of the sister-in-law and the child, instead of cantankerously fighting for the money which is due to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, in order to enable the 3rd respondent to settle the matter with the petitioner, I grant one month's time. Interim order is extended by a month.” 3. Thereafter the 3rd respondent has been taking time to settle the matter. Today, the counsel for the W.P.(C)No. 37655 of 2009 -3- petitioner and the 3rd respondent submit that no settlement is possible. Therefore the matter was heard on merits. 4. It is settled law that a nominee under the Life Insurance Policy is not entitled to appropriate the insurance amount for himself. The nominee can only receive the money under the policy on behalf of the legal heirs and he is bound to disburse it to the legal heirs in accordance with law of succession applicable to the deceased. Under the Hindu law, by which the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are governed, the 3rd respondent-brother of the deceased is not a legal heir entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. Therefore although he may be entitled to receive the money by virtue of the nomination, he is bound to disburse it to the petitioner and her children. From the attitude of the 3rd respondent perceived in this writ petition, I am satisfied that the 3rd respondent is not likely to disburse the money received by him from the LIC to the petitioner and the child. Therefore I am of opinion that the insurance amount should not be disbursed to the 3rd W.P.(C)No. 37655 of 2009 -4- respondent by respondents 1 & 2. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall file a suit before the appropriate civil court, seeking payment of the insurance money with the respondents as defendants in the suit. Thereafter the petitioner shall inform the respondents 1 & 2 regarding the filing of the suit, on receipt of which, the respondents 1 & 2 shall deposit the insurance amount before the court in which that suit is filed. The civil court shall adjudicate the suit and pass a decree thereon in accordance with law expeditiously. The suit shall be filed within one month. The amount shall in no case be disbursed to the 3rd respondent. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/