Nomination in a life insurance policy confers no right on the nominee during the lifetime of the assured and only gives a bare right to collect the policy money on his death.

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Attingal in O.S.No.136 of 1954. The appellants were the plaintiffs in that suit.

2. They are the widow and son of one Vasudevan Pillai who had taken out a policy from the 3rd respondent (3rd defendant), the Bombay Life Assurance Company Limited, Bombay. The 1st respondent (1st defendant) is the father of the said Vasudevan Pillai and the 2nd respondent (2nd defendant) is his mother.

3. The policy issued by the 3rd respondent is Ext.1 dated 21-11-1950. There is a column in the policy headed "To whom the sum assured is payable." The entry in that column is "To the assured if alive at maturity, otherwise to his father S. Neelakanda Pillai the nominee". On the strength of this entry the 1st respondent contended that he was entitled to the entire amount due under the policy, & that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in that amount. The court below accepted the contention and dismissed the suit.

4. According to the appellants, the nomination will not affect the devolution of the amount on the death of the assured intestate and they and the 2nd defendant are entitled to share the amount equally under S.11 and 12 of the Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100. It is common ground that if the nomination by itself did not give the 1st respondent a right to appropriate the amount for himself on the death of the assured, the amount will have to be divided equally between the mother, the widow and the son of the deceased as claimed by the appellants. It is also agreed that the effect of the nomination will depend solely on the true scope and meaning of S.39 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

5. Sub-section (1) of S.39 (omitting the proviso thereto which is not material) reads as follows:

"The holder of a policy of life insurance on his own life, may when effecting the policy or at any time before the policy matures for payment, nominate the person or persons to whom the money secured by the policy shall be paid in the event of his death;"

and sub-section (6) of that section:

"Where the nominee, or if there are more nominees than one, a nominee or nominees survive the person whose life is insured, the amount secured by the policy shall be payable to such survivor or survivors."

The question for determination is whether these provisions give the nominee a mere right to collect the amount or whether it confers on him a right to appropriate it as well. In other words, does a nomination only clothe the nominee with authority to receive the policy money from the Insurance Company and give a good discharge or does it also make him the owner of the money on the death of the assured without any liability to make it over to his legal representatives?

6. In AIR. 1955 Calcutta 275 the nomination was in the following terms:

"I nominate my wife and my son-in-law, the survivor or survivors, as the persons to receive the moneys under the above policy in the event of my prior death."

The court said:

"A nominee in respect of a policy of insurance under these terms does not become the owner of the money payable to him under the policy. Such nomination only indicates the person who should receive the money should the owner die. A receiver of moneys is not the owner of the moneys. He has only the right to collect the moneys."

"In my view sob-section (6) of S.39, Insurance Act does no more than make the nominee a receiver to receive the moneys from the insurance policy without deciding the question of title. The language used in subsection (6) of S.39, Insurance Act does not say that the amount secured by the policy shall belong to such nominee, but uses the words 'shall be payable' to such nominee."

We are in agreement with this view.

7. AIR. 1956 Calcutta 275 was followed in AIR 1957 Madras 115. In that case Govinda Menon, J., said:

"So far as nomination is concerned, we do not see any appreciable difference between the English and American law on the one hand, and what obtains in our country. Accord