Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Rupa Devi vs The Chief Manager on 11 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
WP(C) No. 2145 of 2020
Smt. Rupa Devi, wife of Ghameshwar Ravidas, resident of Gadokhar, PO
Kadma, PS Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag-825301, (Jharkhand)
..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chief Manager, The Life Insurance Corporation of India, office at
"Jivan Jyoti Bhawan" Holly Cross Road, Julu Park, PO & PS Hazaribag,
Dist.- Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
2. The Branch Manager (Administration), The Life Insurance Corporation of
India, office at "Jivan Jyoti Bhawan" Holly Cross Road, Julu Park, PO & PS
Hazaribag, Dist.- Hazaribag (Jharkhand) .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents-LIC : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to
Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
For the Intervener/ R. No.3 : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate
--------
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties
have no objection with it and submitted that audio and video qualities are good.
Order No.06/Dated: 11th November, 2022
IA No. 5520 of 2021
Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Santosh Kumar Ravidas has submitted that IA No. 5520 of 2021 has been
filed to implead him as intervener-respondent No.3, as the interest of the
intervener is directly connected with the result of this writ petition and he has
not been made party in the writ petition.
2. Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents-LIC have no objection.
3. Let Santosh Kumar Ravidas be added party as respondent No.3.
4. Accordingly, IA No. 5520 of 2021 is allowed.
WP(C) No. 2145 of 2020
5. Heard, Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents-LIC and Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel for intervener/
respondent No.3.
6. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Smt.
Rupa Devi for a direction upon the respondents to release the death claim
benefit of the daughter of the petitioner in favour of the daughter of deceased
aged about 17 months and appoint petitioner as a guardian of the 17 months
minor child and may also direct the respondents not to release the death claim
in favour of the husband of the deceased.
7. Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted, that the petitioner purchased two LIC policies in the name of her
unmarried daughter, namely, Renu Kumari on 28.12.2016 and 28.02.2017
vide policy No. 549353527 and 549353677 respectively and in both the
policies, name of the petitioner is mentioned as nominee.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that
though Santosh Kumar Ravidas (husband) has subsequently become nominee
by changing the original nominee Rupa Devi, who is the petitioner before
this Court after her marriage.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the
deceased died and, thereafter, a case was instituted vide Korrah PS Case No.
114 of 2019 under Sections 304, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 498(A)/ 34 of the
Indian Penal Code on 01.08.2019 on the basis of the complaint petition
against Santosh Kumar Ravidas and seven others, which is annexed as
Annexure-2 to the writ petition, as such, the nominee was not allowed to
withdraw this money because the insured Renu Kumari left behind a
daughter aged about 17 months, who is living with the petitioner-Rupa Devi,
who is mother of the deceased and maternal grandmother of the minor child.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of "Viswas
Kumar Barnwal v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors." passed in WP(S) No.
3839 of 2013 vide judgment dated 21.11.2012. Paragraph Nos. 15 to 17 may
profitably be quoted hereunder:
"15. In "Sarbati Devi (Smt) and Anr. Vs. Usha Devi (Smt)" reported
in (1984) 1 SCC 424, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that,
"A mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Insurance
Act, 1939 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee
any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life
insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination
only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the
amount on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid
discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however,
can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with
law of succession governing them."
16. Taking note of the judgment in "Sarbati Devi", the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Vishin N. Khanchandani Vs. Vidya Lachmandas
Khanchandani" reported in (2000) 6 SCC 724, held as under:
13. ".......... the law laid down by this Court in Sarbati Devi
holds the field and is equally applicable to the nominee
becoming entitled to the payment of the amount on account of
National Savings Certificates received by him under Section 6
read with Section 7 of the Act who in turn is liable to return the
amount to those in whose favour the law creates a beneficial
interest, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 8
of the Act."
17. From the aforesaid judgments, there cannot be any manner of
doubt that the nomination of a person does not entitle the person to
become the owner of the property. A nominee holds the property only
for executing or distributing the property amongst the legal heirs and
the entitlement of the property has to be decided according to the law
of succession. From the facts as disclosed in the writ petition, it does
not appear that the petitioner falls under the category of legal heir. It
is also not clear whether the claim of Pratima Kumari as legal heir of
the deceased employee has been accepted by any Court and
therefore, the claim raised by the petitioner cannot be entertained
even for the purpose of distribution amongst the legal heirs."
It appears from the aforesaid judgment that the nominee is only
the custodian of the property. The nominee cannot withdraw the property
for utilization. Nominee is duty bound to handover the property to the legal
heir, who is daughter of the deceased also.
11. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed, that the
Life Insurance Corporation may be directed to deposit the amount in the
nationalized bank for a long term deposit scheme till the minor daughter
attains majority.
12. Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Intervener/ Santosh Kumar Ravidas has submitted that since the husband is
also a legal rightful owner of the maturity amount of the policy, amount may
be bifurcated.
13. At this stage, this Court cannot allow the prayer of Mr.
Shailendra Jit, learned counsel for the Santosh Kumar Ravidas since the
husband is facing a criminal trial. As per Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel,
the final report has been filed but since the daughter, who is aged about 17
months and the husband was not the first nominee of the policy rather Rupa
Devi-petitioner was nominee in the initial stage, which was issued in the
name of Renu Devi at unmarried stage, who is the mother of the deceased, as
such, it is not the husband, who has deposited the money at the time of
issuance of policy. This Court is not inclined to concede such prayer,
accordingly, the prayer of Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel for the
intervener-Santosh Kumar Ravidas is hereby rejected.
14. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner as well as the
intervener/ Santosh Kumar Ravidas are directed to place the date of birth
certificate of daughter of deceased before the Bank Manager, so that money
can be fixed till she attains majority. After majority, the money can only be
withdrawn or utilized but it has to be taken note of, that major part of this
money should go in favour of the daughter because her education and her
marriage are essential in her life time. If the father fails to provide financial
help to his daughter for educational purposes, then the minor child through
her grandmother can file an application before the Branch Manager to remit
some money on quarterly basis, so that education of the child cannot hamper,
which shall be paid through the bank transaction, so as to keep the record.
15. The Life Insurance Corporation is directed to remit the amount
in the nationalized bank as opted by both the sides Rupa Devi as well as
Santosh Kumar Ravidas in the District of Hazaribag itself. The Bank
Manager shall examine the date of birth of the daughter of victim Renu
Kumari and will fix the amount for long term deposit, so that none of the
party may misutilize this money before attaining the majority by the daughter
of the deceased, so that the money can be utilized for fruitful purposes.
16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with
aforesaid directions.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Madhav/-
