Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
SHUBHANGI SHIVJIRAO GHATGE—Appellant
versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA—Respondent
C.A. No. of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 3824 of 1993)—Decided on 2.4.1996
The entitlement to the assured amount was determined based on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the status of the claimants as Class I heirs.
Headnote:
Insurance - Nomination - Entitlement of widow and children to claim share in assured amount - Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Fact of the Case:
The deceased policy holder had nominated his widow to receive the assured amount. After his demise, the widow and children, along with the deceased's mother and brother, laid rival claims for a share in the assured amount. The State Commission held the widow entitled to 3/5th of the amount, but the National Commission dismissed the claim. The court had to determine the entitlement of the widow, children, mother, and brother to the assured amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deceased's brother, not being a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not entitled to a share in the assured amount. The mother, being a Class I heir, was entitled to a share in proportion prescribed under the personal law. The widow and children were entitled to 3/4th share, while the mother was entitled to 1/4th share of the amount. The respondent-Corporation was directed to pay 3/4th of the assured amount to the widow and children within a specified period.
Issues: Entitlement of widow, children, mother, and brother to the assured amount
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to determine the entitlement of the claimants to the assured amount. It held that the widow and children were entitled to a larger share based on their status as Class I heirs, while the mother was entitled to a smaller share.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondent-Corporation was directed to pay 3/4th of the assured amount to the widow and children within a specified period.
K. Ramaswamy, J.—Leave granted.
We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.
2. The admitted position is that Shivjirao Ghatge was holder of Policy Nos. 6908057, 65116839 and 940851303. In all the policies, the total sum assured was Rs. 1, 80,000/- including accident benefit. On demise of the policy holder, appellant as his widow and children laid claim. Admittedly, the deceased had nominated the appellant to receive the said amount. Deceased’s mother and brother laid the rival claims for share in the assured amount. Consequently, the respondent could not make payment of the said amount. The appellant had approached the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission held that the appellant is entitled to 3/5th of the amount. On appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the impugned order dated November. 2, 1992 dismissed the same. Though the brother of the deceased had laid the claim, he is not a Class I heir under Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 though mother is a Class I heir. Therefore, mother may claim a share in proportion prescribed under the personal law. The deceased left behind him two children and his widow. Therefore, they are entitled on 3/4th share while the mother may claim 1 /4th share of the amount. The respondent-Corporation is directed by pay 3/4th of the assured amount, less the amount already paid, to them within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. If there is any dispute regarding the rest of the amount, the same will be subject to the result in the suit.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
–
