Subhagini Meher vs Chief Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 3546 Ori

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

     I.A. no.15541 of 2022 arising out of W.P.(C) No.2655 of 2022
                        (Through hybrid mode)

 Subhagini Meher                                    ....                 Petitioner

                                     -versus-

 Chief Manager, State Bank of                       ....        Opposite Parties
 India, Dunguripalli, ADB Branch
 and others


 Advocates appeared in this case:

 For Review applicant/
 writ petitioner:      Mr. Akshaya Kumar Nayak, Advocate

 For Opp. Parties:            Mr. Akshya Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                              Mr. Hemanta Kumar Mahanta, Advocate


              CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                      JUDGMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing:15.12.2022, 11.01.2023 and 08.02.2023 Date of Judgment: 17.04.2023

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Review applicant was writ petitioner. She is widow of a person

deceased, who had three accounts in the bank. One was in respect of

short term deposits. The account had a nominee. The nominee is Rohit

Meher, nephew of the deceased. Said person was not made party in the

writ petition since, review applicant/writ petitioner was unaware of the

nomination.

// 2 //

2. Review applicant/writ petitioner was under impression that

father of Rohit Meher, being brother of the deceased, was the nominee.

Hence, the bank and the brother were made parties in the writ petition.

On Court being satisfied that the brother had also died, there was

direction upon the bank to pay the proceeds to petitioner. The direction

was made by order dated 29th July, 2022, disposing of the writ petition.

Soon thereafter this Bench lost assignment in respect of the writ petition.

3. The bank applied by RVWPET no.213 of 2022. Prayer was for

modification of said order dated 29th July, 2022, in respect of direction

to pay on aforesaid account. On behalf of the bank it was submitted, pay

out on the two other accounts had been made to writ petitioner but the

third account had nominee, who is said nephew of the deceased. In the

circumstances, this Bench by order dated 3rd November, 2022 allowed

the review, on modifying said order dated 29th July, 2022 disposing of

the writ petition.

4. Review applicant/writ petitioner came to know of the

modification and took out present application, for review of the

modification order. Review applicant/writ petitioner demonstrated that

she was unaware of the nominee and the bank had given impression that

her brother-in-law was the nominee. In this review application there was

made order dated 8th February, 2023 adding the nephew, nominee in the

// 3 //

deposits account. In this context paragraphs 4 to 6 in said order is

reproduced below.

"4. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant/writ petitioner while Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, for the bank. They rely on judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, reported in AIR 1984 SC 346, in particular paragraph 12. They submit, though law declared was in context of Insurance Act, 1938 but same is applicable to the case.

5. The assignment in respect of the disposed of writ petition is no longer with this Bench. However, by reason of the application made in the also disposed of review, the proceeding is before the Bench. For adjudication, there is necessity to add the nominee. The writ petition being at stage of review proceeding, it is permissible for Court to, inter alia, add party to it as empowered by sub- rule (2) in rule X of order 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

6. Rohit Meher, S/o- Chetaram Meher, At/P.O- Sukha, P.SDunguripali is added as party. Applicant/writ petitioner will file consolidated cause title. Thereupon issue notice of this order and I.A. no.15541 of 2022 on the party added, by registered/speed post with A.D. Applicant/writ petitioner will put in requisites.

(emphasis supplied)

// 4 //

5. Hearing on the review application stood adjourned on three

occasions thereafter, essentially for review applicant/writ petitioner and

the nominee to settle their claims, amongst themselves. In this context,

as Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the bank points

out from its counter to the review application, in paragraph-9 his client

said that review applicant may approach the bank for release of the

third account along with the nominee, as stated in the STDRs.

Paragraph 9 from said counter dated 6th January, 2023 is reproduced

below.

"9. That there was no violation of natural justice nor review order was passed behind the back of the petitioner. And as per the statement of the petitioner's counsel on 29.7.22 the impugned order was passed and the petitioner if so like he may file approach the Bank for release of the third account along with the nominee as stated in the STDRs."

(emphasis supplied)

6. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of

applicant/writ petitioner. He submits, he has filed memo dated 3rd April,

2023 to bring to notice of the Court, miserable plight his client is

suffering in not getting the money left behind by her husband, due to

nomination of the nephew. He submits, neither the nominee nor the

bank are cooperating with his client.

// 5 //

7. Mr. Mahanta, learned advocate appears on behalf of added

opposite party nominee (the nephew) and submits, applicant/writ

petitioner never approached his client for any sort of settlement.

8. A passage from paragraph-12 in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi

reported in AIR 1984 SC 346, dealing with Insurance Act, 1938 is

reproduced below.

" xx xx xx We approve the views expressed by the other High Courts on the meaning of section 39 of the Act and hold that a mere nomination made under section 39 of the Act 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 authorised 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 the law of succession governing them.

(emphasis supplied)

Above law declared is accepted by the parties to apply to nomination

made in respect of the deposits in the third account. As such, the

nominee may approach the bank, in said capacity, to obtain the

proceeds. Review applicant/writ petitioner has claim to succeed to the

// 6 //

money as a Class-I heir. In the circumstances, review applicant must

find remedy in the civil Court.

9. With the above, the application is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks