HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.4843 of 2019
ORDER:
The petitioners are the father and mother of late Rasheed Babu Sayyad, who was passed away while discharging his functions as Hawaldar in the Postal wing of the Army at Belgaum of Karnataka State on 03.03.2017.
2. Late Hawaldar Rasheed Babu Sayyad had a Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No.APS628909-P. Upon the death of their son, the petitioners had filed necessary applications for receiving the insurance benefit under the said insurance scheme. At that stage, the petitioners were informed that the petitioners were entitled to 1/3 share of the total insurance benefit of Rs.37,50,000/- payable under the scheme. The remaining 2/3 was to go to the wife of the deceased and the minor son, in equal shares. The amounts payable to the wife and son were released and the amounts payable to the son were invested for his benefit. However, the respondents were not inclined to release the amounts on the ground that the deceased son of the petitioners had nominated his wife Smt. Sayyad Malini, who is arrayed as respondent No.6 in the present writ petition, as the person to whom the benefits should be released.
3. As the insurance benefits were not being released to the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release their 1/3 share of the insurance benefits amounting to Rs.12,37,500/-.
4. After the filing of the writ petition, notice had been served on the 6th respondent and the memo of proof of service filed by the petitioners has been accepted by this Court on 15.10.2019. However, the 2 RRR,J W.P.No.4843 of 2019 6th respondent has not chosen to appear before the Court and no counter affidavit has been filed by her.
5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is being taken up for consideration.
6. The position and status of the Class-I heir of a deceased policy holder has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi1, Shubhangi Shivji Raoghatge v. L.I.C. of India2, and Vishin N. Khanchandani v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani3.
7. A perusal of the said judgments would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the person mentioned in the nominee column of the insurance policy only acts as the agent of all the Class-I heirs and every Class-I heir of the deceased would be entitled to a share in the amount received by the nominee of the policy.
8. This issue was also considered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Saleha Fatima and Ors., v. Mirza Fazal Hussain Baig and Ors.4. After considering the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the erstwhile High Court had also held that any money disbursed to the nominee would become the matruka property of the deceased and the legal heirs under Muslim Law would be entitled to a share in the said property.
9. In these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioners would be entitled to 1/3 share of the insurance amount of Rs.37,50,000/- and their right to claim the said amount cannot be defeated by the refusal of 1 1984 ACJ 138 (SC) 2 (1997) 10 SCC 308 3 (2000) 6 SCC 724 4 2009 (2) ALD 308 = 2009 (4) ALT 296 3 RRR,J W.P.No.4843 of 2019 the 6th respondent to receive the said amount as a nominee, and subsequently hand over the said amount to the petitioners.
10. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent authorities to release the balance 33% of the insurance benefit under the AGI scheme amounting to Rs.12,37,500/- earmarked to the petitioners, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
3rd February, 2021 Js.
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.4843 of 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.4843 of 2019
3rd February, 2021
Js.