Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Sayyad Shamshad vs Union Of India on 3 February, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
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
1984 ACJ 138 (SC)
(1997) 10 SCC 308
(2000) 6 SCC 724
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.
