THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.553 OF 2003
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the dated 31.01.2003 in O.S.No.78 of 1997 on the file Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.
2. The suit is filed by the mother of Venkateshwarlu against her daughter-in-law and grandsons and also against the insurance companies i.e. United India Insurance Co. Limited and Secretary of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh for 1/4th share in the amounts to be paid to her son. She claimed her share along with the wife and children of the Venkateshwarlu.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that her son was a practicing advocate at Miryalguda. D1 is his wife, D2 and D3 are his children. Her son died on 21.06.1997 in a car accident. He was insured in United India Insurance for Rs.5,00,000/- vide policy No.051402/47/56/6062 dated 28.08.1996. Apart from that, he was also insured with Nalgonda District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., under 2 J.P.A and G.P.A Insurance Policy of National Insurance Company Ltd., vide certificate bearing No.55110/No.0055652 dated 29.03.1996 for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. Apart from that, insured in United India Insurance Company Ltd., for Rs.50,000/- towards Car Accident Policy and his legal heirs are entitled for Rs.40,000/- from the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.
4. She further stated that, she purchased scooter bearing No.AP-10-F5349 worth Rs.20,000/-, furniture and books for Rs.1,00,000/-, house hold articles like Air Coolers, Refrigerator, Washing Machine and other house- hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- to him and she is entitled for 1/4th share in the said items. Apart from that, Rs.1,25,000/- cash was kept in the car, when he met with accident, and the said amount was taken by A1 on the date of accident and she is entitled for 1/4th in the said amount.
5. D1 in written statement admitted their relation and stated that she has not received any personal accident policy under J.P.A and G.P.A Insurance Policy of National Insurance Company Ltd., for an amount of Rs.35,000/- and she didn't receive any amount of Rs.40,000/- from the 3 Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and she received only Rs.3,75,000/- from United India Insurance Company Ltd., for her and her children. She also stated that the policy made by her husband while purchasing the car under Hire Purchase system was for Rs.50,000/-, but it was adjusted towards the balance instalments of the car, and in fact she also paid Rs.5,000/- to the insurance company apart from adjusting of the said amount. She further stated that the scooter was purchased by her parents after their marriage, furniture and books worth Rs.1,00,000/-, claim by the plaintiff was taken away by them after accident by breaking over the doors of the office and as such she is not entitled for 1/4th share.
6. She further stated that the household articles were given by her parents after marriage and she has not received any amount from the place of the accident after the death of her husband. As she is the nominee of her husband policy, she is entitled for said amount and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The Trial Court considering the arguments of both sides held that plaintiff/mother is also legal heir along with the wife and children of the 4 deceased, as such she is entitled for share in the policy of the insurance company. She is entitled for 1/4th share in the policy of the insurance company worth Rs.5,35,000/- and also the amount to be paid by the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.
7. The Trial Court has held that as the car insurance policy amount was already adjusted towards the instalments due to be paid and D1 paid additional amount of Rs.5,000/-. The question of 1/4th share to the plaintiff does not arise. It is also held that the household articles and scooter were purchased after the marriage of the deceased and plaintiff has not filed any receipts or record to show that she purchased the property as such she is not entitled for 1/4th share in item No. 3,5 and 6 of the Plaint Schedule properties and it was also observed that it was not proved by the plaintiff that the cash of Rs.1,25,000/- from the car was taken away by D1. As such the plaintiff is not entitled for share in item No.8 and accordingly the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff for item Nos.1,2 and 7 of the Plaint Schedule properties and dismissed regarding item Nos. 3 to 6 and 8 of the plaintiff.
5
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife and children of the deceased preferred an appeal in the year 2003 in which the age of mother of the deceased was shown as 61 years.
9. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.11.2022, there was no representation by the respondent. Heard the arguments of the appellant counsel by the previous bench on 17.06.2022 and also by me on 21.10.2022 and posted for respondent hearing on 03.11.2022. But, there was representation for the respondent counsel, as such it is reserved for judgment on 08.11.2022. Considering the age of the respondent in the year 2003 as 61 years, this Court feels that she may be aged more than 80 years and not be in a position to attend the Court or maybe she is no more, as such there is no representation on her part.
10. The counsel of the appellant relied upon the citation reported in SMT.K.SATYAVATHI V/s. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, HYDERABAD1 holding to the effect that 'the amount payable to the deceased under the head of 'death-cum-retirement gratuity' in Rule 50 of the Pension 1 1990 (3) A.L.T. 253 6 Rules does not form part of the estate of the deceased. The mother cannot claim any part of the said amount by way of general succession. The wife alone is exclusively and absolutely entitled to the same'. She also relied upon the citation reported in M.Ct.MUTHAIAH V/s. CONTROLLER OF E.D. MADRAS2 in which it was held that the money payable under the accident insurance policy of the death of the policy holder is not liable to estate duty. Though the policy was taken for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the appellant herein received only Rs.3,75,000/- and as per the above decision, respondent No.1 herein is not entitled for share in the policy issued under J.P.A and G.P.A Insurance Policy of National Insurance Company Ltd., and as on the date of filing the suit, the appellant No.1 has not received the money from the Bar Council also.
11. In the absence of arguments of the respondent counsel, considering the arguments of the appellant counsel, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to hold that the appellants alone are entitled for the amounts in respect of item Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of the claim scheduled 2 1986 Supreme Court 1863 7 property and respondent No.1 is not entitled for any share as held by the Trial Court.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the Trial Court dated 31.01.2003.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SUDHA Date: 22.11.2022.
sus