IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3497 of 2007 ROZY KUMARI @ REEZI KUMARI WIFE OF NO.03 5201464 LT. C.T./G.T. RANDHIR KUMAR DAUGHTER OF SRI RAMNATH CHAUDHARY PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TAJPUR, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI; PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE DANIYALPUR GATE NO. 12, P.O. & P.S. TEGHRA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF C.R.P.F., NEW DELHI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, GROUP CENTRE, C.R.P.F. MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR) 4. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, C.R.P.F. MOKAMA GHAT, PATNA (BIHAR) 5. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BEGUSARAI. 6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BEGUSARAI. 7. THE ZONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PATNA. 8. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEAR BADI POKHAR, POKHARIA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI 9. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI RAM UDGAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DANIYALPUR, GATE NO. 12, P.O. & P.S. TEGHRA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ----------- 4 18/03/2010 The present petitioner claims herself to be the rightful wife of late Randhir Kumar. Late Randhir Kumar was a constable in the C.R.P.F. who lost his life in a land mine explosion in the State of Chhatisgarh. That was on 3.9.2005. After death of the husband of the petitioner, certain benefits were released in her favour but the benefit arising out - 2 - of life insurance bearing proposal no. 15456 was not released in her favour. The petitioner learnt subsequently that the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India has released a sum of Rs.3,23,336/- vide cheque dated 16.03.2006 in favour of the brother of the deceased. She raised objection. Her stand is that she being the legally wedded wife was entitled to be paid the insurance amount instead of the brother. The stand of the L.I.C. is that under section 39 of the Insurance Act, they are duty bound to release the money in favour of the nominee. In this case the deceased had declared Rakesh Kumar Singh as his nominee. He is erstwhile brother to receive the claim in case of his death as the rightful nominee. When the respondents were informed of the death of the brother of the nominee, the money came to be released. It is only after release of the money that the present dispute is being raised by the petitioner and claim is being made on her behalf. The respondents Life Insurance Corporation of India deny any liability in this regard or a wrong doing. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a - 3 - decision which is a case of Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and others reported in 2009 (4) BBCJ IV-379 to show that a nominee has no absolute right to claim the benefit or the interest of the benefit payable under the L.I.C. policy either before or on the death of the insured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount as valid discharge of the liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the insured in accordance with law of succession. Based on the ratio of the above decision, the petitioner is claiming release of the insured amount in her favour. From a reading of the above judgment and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it only lays down the proposition by virtue of which the petitioner does have a claim or right to such claim for her part of the share if she is rightful legal heir in this regard but to declare that the respondents L.I.C. have committed an illegality by releasing money in favour of the nominee cannot be derived or detected from the said decision. In view of the above stated position, no direction - 4 - can be made in favour of the L.I.C. for release of money in her favour or to declare the release in favour of the nominee to be illegal. However, the petitioner does have a right to claim her share from the money which has been released in favour of the brother of the deceased as a nominee in view of the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Shipra Sengupta (Supra). This writ application is dismissed but right of the petitioner to claim the amount from the private respondent remains. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)