IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23730 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MRS.SHERLY STANY, AGED 33 YEARS W/O.LATE STANY MATHEW, VATTATHOTTATHIL (HOUSE) AVOLY PO, ANIKADU, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VELLANKANIRAPPIL HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM PO,NELLIMOLAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 545. 2. KEVIN S MATHEW ,AGED 3 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS. SHERLY STANY. 3. KATHERIN STANY AGED FOUR MONTHS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS. SHERLY STANY. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA PB NO.6, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND MUVATTUPUZHA 686661. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.1122 JEEVAN PRAKASH, M G ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 3. MARY MATHEW, W/O.MATHAYI, AGED 66 YEARS VATTATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, AVOLY PO, ANIKADU, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VELLANKANIRAPPIL HOUSE RAYAMANGALAM PO, NELLIMOLAM, ERNAKULAM. SC SRI.ESWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23730 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY EXT.P2- COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.11 EXT.P3- COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.11 EXT.P4- COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 31.7.11 EXT.P5- THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.8.11 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P6- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DOCUMENT HAVING NO.1977 OF 2011 DATED 7.5.11 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).23730/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the wife and children of late Stany Mathew. The deceased has subscribed two insurance policies with respondents 1 and 2, a value of which is Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.50,000/- respectively. Admittedly, the nominee for both these policies is the third respondent, the mother of the deceased. It appears that the relationship between the parties is strained and therefore, the petitioner apprehends that if the nominee receives the policy amount, the amount will not be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i). Issue a writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 for releasing the Insurance death claim of deceased Stany Mathew under Policy Nos.773223868 and 771770832 irrespective of nomination made in the policy to the petitioners herein. (ii). Issue any other appropriate order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to release W.P.(C).23730/11 2 insurance claim to the 3rd respondent nominee under the Insurance policies having Nos.773223868 and 771770832 in the name of the deceased Stany Mathey by staying all further proceedings pursuance to Ext.P5 letter in releasing Insurance amount to the 3rd respondent in her capacity as nominee of the said Insurance policies. 2. It is not a matter of dispute that the third respondent is the nominee in the policies and the nominee is entitled to receive payments from the Insurance Company, irrespective of her obligations to disburse the amount to the rightful claimant. Therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted in a writ petition and it is open to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and to work out their remedies. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs