Civil Revision No. 6199 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6199 of 2006 Date of Decision: 23.4.2009 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.K. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri V.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for Shri B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.7. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the Courts below on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 to 4. One Sardul Singh, working as a driver with the Haryana Roadways, died on 23.6.2002. The dispute is regarding payment of terminal benefits and the claim of the Life Insurance Policy, between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Plaintiff No. 1 alleges herself to be mother of the deceased, whereas plaintiff No. 2 claims to be wife of the deceased. Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are alleged to be the minor children. The defendant- Civil Revision No. 6199 of 2006 (2) petitioner claims to be wife of the deceased as well. The learned trial Court relied upon judgment dated 17.1.1998 showing plaintiff No.2 as the wife of Sardul Singh and also written statement in the proceedings in the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridkot. The Court has considered the documents relied upon by the defendant such as photo copies of Life Insurance Policy; voter card; ration and card, reflecting the said defendant (petitioner herein), as wife of Sardul Singh. Consequently, the learned trial Court restrained defendant Nos. 2 to 4 from releasing any service/monetary benefits arising out of the service rendered by deceased Sardul Singh in favour of defendant No.1, till the final decision of the suit. The said order was affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that defendant No.1 is a nominee in the Life Insurance Policy of the deceased- Sardul Singh, therefore, the Life Insurance Corporation, is bound to make payment of the insurance amount to the petitioner, which amount is to be shared by the legal heirs, as may be determined by the Court at the time of final decision of the suit. The Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot be restrained from paying the said amount to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, as she is recorded as a nominee in the policy taken out by late Sardul Singh. It is also contended that though the petitioner has a right to claim terminal benefits payable to Sardul Singh as his wife, but the question as to how much amount shall be payable to the petitioner or to the other legal heirs (plaintiffs), can be examined only after evidence is led by the parties and the question of inter-se relationship is decided. I find merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As a nominee in the Life Insurance Policy, the petitioner is Civil Revision No. 6199 of 2006 (3) entitled to receive the amount of insurance for the benefit of all the legal heirs. The nominee is trustee of the amount for disbursement to the rightful owners. The issue whether defendant No.1 is the wife of Sardul Singh, is yet to be examined. Therefore, the equity demands that in terms of the nomination in the Life Insurance Policy, the amount of insurance, should be paid to the petitioner on furnishing of adequate surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. In the eventuality of a finding that the petitioner has no interest or limited interest, the petitioner shall make the payment of the said amount/remaining amount to the plaintiffs. Similarly, the learned trial Court shall determine the entitlement of the petitioner, if any, out of terminal benefits at the time of final adjudication of the suit so as to adjust the financial rights and liabilities of both the parties. The order passed by the Courts below stands modified to this extent only. With the above observations, the revision petition stands disposed of. The defendants shall disburse the amount as ordered by the Courts below and modified by this Court , within a period of two months. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23.4.2009 ds