Karnataka High Court
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Smt Pushpa on 1 February, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
RSA No. 603 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
BY SR. BRANCH MANAGER
BRANCH OFFICE, UDUPI
COURT BACK ROAD, UDUPI - 574 104.
2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
BY SR. BRANCH MANAGER
BRANCH OFFICE, KARKALS
KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HALLUR SHIVAYOGI BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SUMA B N AND:
Location: High 1. SMT PUSHPA
Court of
Karnataka W/O LATE RAMESH POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SMT. CHANDRIKA
W/O VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3. VIJAYALAXMI
D/O LALTE RAMESH POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
RSA No. 603 of 2021
4. RAVICHANDRA KOTIAN
S/O LATE RAMESH POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT ALL
R/AT S.B.P HOUSE, LADI
PRANTHYA VILALGE POST
MOODABIDRI, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.
5. SHOBHA
D/O DOMBAYYA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO. 2-75B, DAREGUDDE
BLOCK NO.1, DAREGUDDE
MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR
R1 TO 4;
SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.04.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.13/2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM,
UDUPI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.01.2019
PASSED IN O.S.NO.54/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
RSA No. 603 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
07.01.2019 passed in O.S.No.54/2012 on the file of
Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Udupi (hereinafter
'the Trial Court') and which is confirmed by the
judgment and order dated 01.04.2021 passed in
R.A.No.13/2019 on the file of Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Udupi (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').
2. The above suit was filed by the
plaintiff/respondent Nos.1 to 4 seeking for recovery of
insurance claim amount pertaining to the policy
No.623552001 for a sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- and
policy No.623553098 for a sum assured Rs.1,25,000/-.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is
the wife and plaintiffs Nos.2 to 3 are the daughters of
one Ramesh Poojary who was the holder of the Life
Insurance Policy issued by the defendant No.2-
Insurance Company. That the said Ramesh Poojary
died in a car accident on 26.04.2009 leaving behind the
plaintiffs as his legal heirs. That the defendants settled
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
the claim of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of the seven
other policies of the deceased expect aforesaid two
policies in question. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 despite
being aware of plaintiffs being the wife and children of
the deceased Ramesh Poojary, repudiated the claim by
a letter dated 20.11.2009 on the premise that the
defendant No.3 is the nominee in respect of aforesaid
two policies and would be settled the claim in favour
defendant No.3. It is further contended that defendant
Nos.1 and 2 proceeded illegally to settle the claim of
defendant No.3 on 11.02.2010. Being aggrieved by the
same plaintiffs have filed a complaint No.27/2010
against the defendants on the file of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Udupi, wherein the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended on the strength of the
nomination made in the name of defendant No.3 that
she is the wife of the deceased, they have settled the
claim. In view of the aforesaid dispute the plaintiff filed
the suit.
2.1 The defendant No.2 filed the written statement
disputing the plaint averments they also denied the
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
relationship between the plaintiff and deceased Ramesh
Poojary. They contended that since there is a valid
nomination made in the policy by the deceased Ramesh
Poojary in the name of defendant No.3 mentioning as
his wife, she was paid the money in terms of Section
39 of the Insurance Act. Hence sought for dismissal of
the suit.
2.2 The defendant No.3 filed written statement denying
the case of the plaintiffs and claimed that she is the wife
and legal heir of the deceased Ramesh Poojary having
been duly appointed as the nominee of the deceased in
the aforesaid Policies, as such she was entitled to
receive and appropriate the entire policy amount
available under the said policies. She denied the claim
of the plaintiffs being the wife and children of the
deceased Ramesh Poojary.
3. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
following issues for its consideration:
"1.Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are
the only legal heirs of deceased Ramesh
Poojary?
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for suit
reliefs?
3. What order or decree?"
4. The plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 and
exhibited 20 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. In
order to prove their defence, The Manager of defendant
No.1-LIC examined himself as DW1 and exhibited 9
documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D9. On appreciation
of the evidence the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1, 2
in the affirmative and consequently decreed the suit
directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay the
insurance amount as claimed with interest at 12% p.a.
on the sum found due from the date of settlement i.e.,
11.02.2010 till realization.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and
decree defendant No.1 to 5 filed an appeal in R.A.No.
13/2019. Considering the grounds urged therein the
First Appellate Court framed the following points for
consideration:
" 1. Whether the plaintiffs have established
that the plaintiffs are the class-I legal heirs of
deceased Ramesh Poojary?
2. Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 have
established that they have rightly settled the
claim in favour of the defendant No.3 as per
Section 39 of the Insurance Act?
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
3. Whether the trial Court has committed
error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs?
4. What order or decree?"
6. On re-appreciation of the evidences the First
Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative,
point Nos.2 to 3 in the negative and consequently
dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.13/2019
defendants/plaintiffs are before this Court.
7. Sri. Shivayogi.B.Hallur, learned counsel for
the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the
memorandum of the appeal submitted that, the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erred
in not appreciating the fact that defendant Nos.1 and
2 have already settled the claim in favour of
defendant No.3 as per Section 39 of the Insurance
Act. He submits that the liability ought to have been
fastened on the defendant No.3 as she had stated
in the written statement that she was the nominee
in the policies in question and had received the
claim amount. Therefore he submits that the
payment ought to have been directed to be made
by the defendant No.3. It is his contention that
nominee has only right to receive the claim amount
is concerned, all legal heirs are entitled for equal
shares. He submits that if there was a dispute
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
amongst the family members, it ought to have been
being the third parties could not have been directed
to make the payment without determination of the
rights and entitlements of the parties. He submits
that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
have misinterpreted law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Smt.Sarabati Devi and
another Vs. Smt.Usha Devi reported in (1988) 1
SCC 424, wherein it has been held that nomination
made under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, the
legal effect is indicating the hand which is
authorized to receive the amount and the payment
on which the insurance gets valid discharged of its
liability under the policy. Thus he submits that non
consideration of aforesaid factual and legal aspect
of the matter as given raise to substantial question
of law to be considered by this Court. Hence seeks
for allowing of the appeal.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that, deceased Ramesh Poojary
was holding 9 policies of which amount in respect of
7 policies have been released by the defendant-
Insurance Company in favour of the plaintiffs. He
submits that it is only in respect of two policies
which is subject matter of the appeal, the
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
defendants have denied the relationship between
plaintiffs and deceased citing the nomination
allegedly made in the said policies in the name of
the defendant No.3. He submits that defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have no justification in denying the
amount entitled to be received by the plaintiff.
9. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3
submits that the amount paid by the insurance
company is on account of she having been
nominated in the policy and she cannot be made
liable to make the payment as she received the
same in accordance with terms of the policies.
10. Heard. Perused the records.
11. The Trial Court considering the dispute
between the parties had framed the issue No.1
casting burden of the plaintiffs to prove that they
are the only legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh
Poojary. The PW1 in her evidence has adduced as
many as 20 documents in support of their claim of
they being the wife and children of deceased
Ramesh Poojary. The said evidence includes SSLC
marks cards of defendant Nos.2 to 4, Election
Identity Cards, Aadhar Cards etc., wherein the
deceased Poojary has been shown as husband and
father of the plaintiffs respectively. Plaintiffs had
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
also produced seven policies which were in the
name of deceased Ramesh Poojary and the amount
payable under the said policies having been paid in
favour of the plaintiffs. Based on the aforesaid
material evidence The Trial Court has come to
conclusion that the plaintiffs have established and
proved they being the wife and children of deceased
Ramesh Poojary. On the other hand the Trial Court
has found that defendant No.3 did not produce any
document to show that she is the wife of deceased
Ramesh Poojary.
12. The trial Court further taking note of the
law laid in the case of Smt.Sarabati Devi(Supra)
wherein the Apex Court has held that the amount
can be claimed by the heirs of the life assured in
accordance with the law of succession governing
them, has come to the conclusion that the policy
amount payable on the death of the assured forms
part of his estate and devolves according to general
law of succession and cannot be divested by reason
of nomination made under Section 39 of the
Insurance Act. The trial Court has further held that
the plaintiffs having established their relationship
with the deceased were entitled for the policy
amount, more particularly when the appellant-
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
Insurance company have indeed made the payment
in respect of 7 out of 9 policies to the plaintiffs
considering the plaintiffs as wife and children of the
deceased Ramesh Poojary and that refusal to pay
the money in respect of two policies subject matter
of the suit as unsustainable.
13. The First appellate Court has noted that
deceased had 9 policies out of which defendant-
Insurance Company had settled 7 policies in the
name of plaintiff No.1 on 20.06.2009. It has
further noted that though the plaintiff had
submitted the claim in respect of the said two
policies in the dispute the defendant Nos.1 and 2
had repudiated the claim of the plaintiffs by letter
dated 12.11.2009 on the ground defendant No.3 is
the nominee in respect of said two policies. It has
also taken note of the fact that though plaintiffs had
filed objections and had claimed payment of policies
amount, the defendant Nos.1 to 2 proceeded to pay
the amount settling the claim in favour of defendant
No.3 on 11.02.2010. The First Appellate Court has
found that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 could not
have repudiated the claim of the plaintiffs and could
not have settled the claim amount of defendant
No.3 despite there being rival claims. Since the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4392
defendant Nos.1 and 2 have proceeded to settle the
amount to defendant No.3 without even opting to
have the matter resolved either by asking the
parties to produce necessary documents in the
nature of Orders/decree by the competent court of
jurisdiction or by itself resorting to file inter-pleader
suit, the First Appellate Court has confirmed the
findings and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court
while dismissing the appeal.
In the considered view of this Court, no error or
irregularities can be found with the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the
First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law
would arise for consideration by this Court. Accordingly,
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RL
