IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.C.C.A.No.187 OF 2006 Date:15.03.2011 Between:- S.Veerabhadraiah and another ..Appellants/Plaintiffs And B.Geeta and others .. Respondents/Defendants JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29- 03-2006 in O.S.No.2074 of 1997 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the suit for recovery of Rs.3,48,228/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment from defendant No.1 and the relief of mandatory injunction against defendant Nos.2 and 3 directing them to pay superannuation benefit scheme at the rate of Rs.3,389/- per month to the plaintiffs from 09-11-1997 and continue to pay every month, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: Plaintiff No.1 retired from service. Plaintiff No.2 is his wife. They have two sons and two daughters. The second son of the plaintiffs by name S.Sivananda joined in the service of defendant No.2-Company on 22-02-1998 and after putting up service of seven years four months, he met with premature death due to brain haemorrhage on 15-07-1995 while working as Assistant Manager, Sangamer TOP., Jaipur, Rajasthan. As an employee of defendant No.2, the deceased was entitled to retirement benefits including provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, group saving linked insurance etc. His dependents are entitled to superannuation benefit fund and also family pension after his death. The deceased had given names of the plaintiffs as his nominees while submitting his application to defendant No.2 for provident fund and gratuity. Marriage of their son Sivananda was performed with defendant No.1 at Hyderabad on 31-05-1995. But Sivananda unfortunately died just 45 days after the marriage. After his death, defendant No.2 issued a set of formats for applying to post death entitlements informing plaintiff No.1 orally that the amounts would be sent in the name of spouse i.e, defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 asked the plaintiffs to give their letter surrendering the nominations made by the deceased in their favour to defendant No.1 and they gave such a letter in good faith. They also applied on behalf of defendant No.1 for superannuation benefit fund of Rs.3,389/- per month from the date of death of their son. Defendant No.2 sent demand drafts for Rs.2,53,336/- towards provident fund, gratuity etc and Rs.94,892/- towards superannuation benefit fund at Rs.3,389/- per month with effect from July, 1995 for 28 months through defendant No.3, totalling to Rs.3,48,228/-. In addition to the above, defendant No.2 is also paying family pension to defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 is a retired person and he does not get any pension. He has to maintain his family including the unmarried daughter. They have obligation to perform the marriage of their second daughter. When defendant No.1 received the benefits as a member of the family, she has equal responsibility to share the responsibility of plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 married one Ravi Kumar, a Computer Engineer working in U.S.A. on 09-11-1997. Therefore, after the marriage, defendant No.1 has to return the benefits received by her. Plaintiff No.2, being the mother of the deceased Sivananda, is a Class-I heir and she is entitled to half share of the benefits got by defendant No.1. Hence, the suit. 3. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement submitting that as per the company rules, once an employee is married, the spouse will be the legal heir automatically and the spouse is entitled to get all the pensionary benefits but not the parents, that too earning parents. She received the amount as per the company rules and there is no restriction by the company for utilization of the amount for a particular purpose. She could not continue with the plaintiffs as there was harassment by them and she was forced to stay with her parents at BHEL complex. The shares were transferred by defendant No.2 in her name as a legal heir of the deceased person. The benefits are given to the wife only to compensate on account of the death of her husband and the amount need not be shared with others. The loss caused to her on account of the death of her husband is much more when compared to the benefits received by her and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 4. Defendant No.2 filed its written statement submitting that the deceased, prior to his marriage, has filed nominations in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as first and second nominees respectively for the benefits. As per the rules of Superannuation Benefit Fund, the benefit is to be given to the wife of the deceased employee. They do not know about the settlement of family pension scheme, as the competent authority to settle the family pension scheme is Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra. They informed the plaintiffs orally that the amounts would be sent in the name of the spouse and asked the plaintiffs to give letter surrendering the nominations made by the deceased in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs executed a deed relinquishing all rights for all nominations given by their son in favour of defendant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased. The payments were made to defendant No.1 as per the policy of defendant No.2 and also considering the relinquishment deed submitted by the plaintiffs. 5. Defendant No.3, in its written statement, submitted that as per the nomination available in the master policy and also as per the terms and conditions of master policy, the amount is to be disbursed monthly to the nominee, defendant No.1. This act of defendant No.3 is sound and correct as per the law and terms and conditions between the employer of the deceased and the nominee. The plaintiffs have no right as per law to seek any direction to the Court as far as disbursement of group superannuation benefit fund is concerned. 6. Basing on the above, the following issues have been framed for trial: 1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit claim in full? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 7. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7, and on behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no documents are marked. 8. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs ought to have approached defendant Nos.2 and 3 and raised their contentions that they are entitled for family pension benefits of deceased as per family pension rules and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. 9. Now the points for determination are: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of the amount, which was received by defendant No.1 by way of provident fund, gratuity and superannuation benefit fund? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the superannuation fund after the remarriage of defendant No.1? 3. To what relief? 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs contended that as the husband of defendant No.1 died 45 days after the marriage, in a good faith, the plaintiffs have given a consent for payment of the terminal benefits of the deceased to her though they were shown as nominees to receive the amounts, and that as defendant No.1 had remarried, she is liable to pay half of the amount, as plaintiff No.2 is the Class-I heir to the deceased, and as defendant No.1 remarried again, she is not entitled for the monthly benefit scheme and the plaintiffs, who are the dependants of the deceased son, are entitled for monthly benefit scheme and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 11. In spite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 12. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2 contended that as the plaintiffs relinquished their rights with regard to the terminal benefits of their deceased son, the amount has been paid to rightful person in accordance with the rules governing with the company and therefore, the Corporation did not commit any illegality in paying the amounts. 13. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 contended that only the nominee of the deceased person is entitled to the benefits and therefore, the terminal benefits have been paid to the nominee and the impugned judgment needs no interference. 14. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The plaintiffs are husband and wife and they filed the suit for recovery of certain amounts from defendant No.1, who is said to have received the same towards terminal benefits of her deceased husband Sivananda. The marriage of Sivananda with defendant No.1 was performed on 31-05-1995. It is also not in dispute that the deceased Sivananda put up seven years of service as an employee in defendant No.2 Corporation. Forty five days after the marriage, Sivananda died due to brain hemorrhage. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs relinquished their rights with regard to giving of terminal benefits in favour of defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.1 married one Ravi Kumar on 09-11-1997. Because of this change of circumstance, she is not entitled for the monthly family fund scheme from the date of remarriage. The question is whether the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased Sivananda, are entitled to the monthly benefit scheme from defendant No.2. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiffs are claiming the terminal benefits of his deceased son in his capacity as his nominees. A specific plea has been taken in the plaint on this aspect. 15. D.W.1 is examined on behalf of defendant No.2. He stated that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were shown as nominees to receive certain amounts under Provident Fund, Gratuity; that at the time of settlement of terminal benefits of the deceased Sivananda, the plaintiffs have executed a deed relinquishing their rights in favour of defendant No.1; and in pursuance of the said relinquishment, they have paid the terminal benefits to first defendant. A specific plea has been taken by defendant No.2 that the dependants of the deceased are eligible for the terminal benefits. It is not the case of P.W.1 that he, along with his wife, is completely depending upon the earnings of the deceased and they have no other source of income. When the plaintiffs are not dependants of their son, they are not entitled to the monthly pension benefit scheme. As the wife alone was shown to be the dependant as on the date of death of the deceased Sivananda, she is entitled to the said amount. But she married again in the year 1997 and thereafter, she is not entitled to the same. So the question of giving mandatory injunction directing defendant Nos.2 and 3 to pay the monthly pension benefit scheme to the plaintiffs does not arise because the plaintiffs are not shown to be the dependants of the deceased. 16. Coming to the second aspect whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of the recovery amount from defendant No.1, which she received towards Provident Fund, Gratuity and the superannuation benefit fund. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of a relinquishment letter by plaintiffs, the terminal benefits to a tune of Rs.3,48,228/- was paid to defendant No.1. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision between Smt Kasturi Devi, Appellant v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, Respondents[1] wherein at para No.3, it is held as under: “A large number of authorities have been cited in support of this view. We find ourselves entirely in agreement with this view. Our attention has not been invited to any text of the Hindu Law under which a mother could be divested of her interest in the property either on the ground of unchastity of remarriage. We feel the application of the bar of inheritance to the Hindu widow is based on the special and peculiar, sacred and spiritual relationship of the wife and the husband. After the marriage, the wife becomes an absolute partner and an integral part of her husband and the principle on which she is excluded from inheritance on remarriage is that when she relinquishes her link her husband even though he is dead and enters a new family, she is not entitled to retain the property inherited by her. The same, however, cannot be said of a mother. The mother is in an absolutely different position and that is why the Hindu Law did not provide that even the mother would be disinherited if she remarried.” From the above decision, it is clear that when the wife of the deceased enters a new family, she is not entitled to retain the property inherited by her. Therefore, the mother, who is a Class-I heir, is entitled to have a half share in the terminal benefits. For the same proposition, he also relied upon a decision reported in Smt Sarbati Devi and another, Appellants vs. Smt. Usha Devi, Respondent[2] wherein it is held as under: “We approve the views expressed by the other High Courts on the meaning of Section 39 of the Act and hold that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them.” From the above decision, it is clear that even if a nomination is given in favour of certain persons, the heirs of the assured are entitled as per succession. Therefore, following the above decisions, it can be safely held that the plaintiff No.2, who is the mother of the deceased, is entitled to half share in the terminal benefits of her deceased son. Under normal circumstances, plaintiff No.2 is not entitled to the half share, because she already relinquished her right in the terminal benefits in favour of defendant No.1. But after receiving the terminal benefits, defendant No.1 remarried. So in view of the change of circumstances, as defendant No.1 entered into a new family, plaintiff No.2, by way of succession, is entitled to 50% of the amount received by defendant No.1. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal has to be allowed to the extent indicated above. 17. Accordingly, the City Civil Court Appeal is partly allowed. Defendant No.1 is directed to pay 50% of the terminal benefits received by her i.e., 50% of Rs.3,48,228/- to plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.2 is entitled to recover with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction against defendant Nos.2 and 3 directing them to pay superannuation benefit scheme at the rate of Rs.3,389/- per month from 09-11-1997. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 15th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.C.C.A.No.187 OF 2006 Date:15.03.2011 AMD [1] AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 2595 [2] AIR 1984 Supreme Court 346