The appointee's primary duty is to distribute the insurance amount to the minor nominee rather than misappropriating funds meant for the beneficiary.

JUDGMENT :

(H.P. SANDESH, J.)

This appeal is filed challenging the concurrent finding passed by both the Courts in O.S.No.168/2009 dated 05.09.2014 and in R.A.No.3/2024 dated 06.03.2025.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned Junior Counsel as well as Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. The suit was filed for the recovery of money from the appointee, who has been appointed as appointee in order to protect the interest of the minor. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff’s mother, namely, Mary Menezes obtained insurance policy bearing No.621039954 from LIC of India for Rs.1,00,000/- and died on 28.01.2006. The defendant was the appointee and the plaintiff was a minor and he was shown as the nominee. That the defendant is the elder brother of plaintiff’s father, the defendant’s brother had given a General Power of Attorney to receive the amount from the LIC. The defendant illegally utilized the amount and failed to pay the same to the plaintiff. Thus, filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,94,500/- along with interest at 12% p.a.

4. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that he was only an appointee by the deceased and that the husband of the deceased Mary Menezes by name Mr. Simon Philip Menezes and his two sons are the persons entitled to receive the benefit, since nominee is only to collect the amount from the LIC and distribute it to all the heirs. That the second son of deceased Mary Menezes by name Master Edward Lewis Menezes is in the custody of his father and he has entrusted the case and custody of said Master Edward Lewis Menezes to him and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed two Issues at the first instance which read as follows :

1. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,94,500/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to him?

2. Whether defendant proves that he acted as appointee of plaintiff and after collecting the LIC amount he made over the same to said Mr. Simon Philip Menezes?

3. What order or decree?

6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA of plaintiff is examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and got examined one witness as DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D8. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue No.1 partly in affirmative and Issue No.2 in negative and decreed the suit. In the meantime, after decree of the suit and before filing of the appeal, an amount of Rs.80,006/- was transferred to the father of the plaintiff by name Simon Philip Menezes, for which the bank extract was marked as Ex.D9. The father of the plaintiff Simon Philip Menezes expired during the pendency of the appeal in the year 2018. The defendant also preferred an appeal in R.A.No.40/2016 and the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to frame additional issue and to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. Accordingly, the additional issue was framed as whether the defendant proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue No.1 as negative and decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay policy amount of Rs.2,44,073/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% from 31.10.2007 till the payment of full amount.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court